Town Square

Weekly rescinds judgeship endorsement

Original post made
on May 25, 2012

After learning Friday that San Jose attorney Steven Pogue contributed $500 to the 2008 Proposition 8 campaign to ban gay marriage, the Palo Alto Weekly has rescinded its endorsement of his election to the Santa Clara County Superior Court.

Glad to know that being PC on single issue litmus tests is so important that you can revoke an entire endorsement over it. Typical open-mindedness that I've come to appreciate from living among the liberals in this community. Because, of course, confirming the understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman that Western society has held for literally more than 1,000 years, and as would have been universally held even twenty or thirty years ago in this country must make one an ignorant bigot beyond the pale of polite society.

And no, I didn't vote for Prop 8 but arrogance like this makes we wish I had.

Posted by Just Passing Through
a resident of another community
on May 26, 2012 at 6:45 am

I don't think some of you posters are understanding the decision. It's not his view on gay marriage that caused them to rescind the endorsement. It's the fact that he ACTIVELY contributed to the Prop 8 campaign. As a judge, it shows his bias on the issue on a personal level and not impartiality that a judge should have. He can have his personal views but to donate to it shows a hint of activism.

Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 26, 2012 at 8:18 am

I suppose that you should look into how he voted before deciding on who to endorse?

I thought putting money to support a position was perfectly legal.

The only reason to rescind an endorsement would be unethical or illegal behavior surfacing. A personal opinion does not mean that a judge cannot be unbiased. Isn't that what the gay judge who changed the Prop 8 ruling claimed?

Posted by Walt
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 26, 2012 at 8:47 am

This action by publisher Bill Johnson, demonstrates that the Weekly is probably a one-dog show. Generally, editorial comment is left to the editor, not the publisher. The high visibility of Johnson on so many local issues seems to reveal that he sees himself as a force to be reckoned with, and not the business manager of a local business that humbly attempts to record community events.

Johnson, hiding behind the name of the Weekly, claims to be a big supporter of homosexual rights and marriage. He doesn't explain his positionhe just makes it very clear that he is. Given the thirty-odd year history of the Weekly, it would be interesting to see if Bill Johnson has ever taken a stand supporting traditional marriage in as bold a fashion?

Traditional marriageone man and one womanhas been adopted and codified as the moral, and legal, standard for most cultures and societies over the millennia of human social evolution (although some societies have adopted polygamy). The current argument for same sex marriage seems to focus on the fact that the US Constitution makes "all people equal"--so same sex couples are being discriminated against because they are legally barred from marrying.

Most of the US Constitution is framework for a system where the States were intended to create most of the laws that regulated day-to-day life. It is difficult to believe that the Founding Fathers believed that their ideas about "equality" would be used to justify homosexual marriage, after the adoption of the Constitution. Yet, here we aresome 250 years lattermaking that claim.

Many of the fundamental laws concerning social interactions among people have been based in the Judeo-Christian religious beliefs/texts. The Decalogue (Ten Commandments) are certainly seen in laws involving murder, theft and adultery. Other laws involving incest, pedophilia, minimum age for marriage, and so on, can likely be found, in one way, or another, in the Jewish/Christian tradition. The prohibitions against homosexuality can be found in the beliefs of all of the three monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam)religions practiced by over 2B people, worldwide. Moreover, it is hard to find any historical societies/cultures that have embraced same-sex marriage. Promoting same-sex marriage, as Bill Johnson seems to be doing so enthusiastically, would seem to put him at odds with over 8,000 years of human social evolutionthat has found that marriage is an institution that works wellwith partners of the opposite sex.

People promoting same-sex marriage may argue that modern society should not be bound by the primitive ideas of uneducated people who believed in the creation of the world by a "god"who laid down a series of laws that they had to follow, or face the wrath of a loving god turned vengeful. With advances in science, the world can not turn its back on the idea of a "creator", and his unworkable laws. It's the 21st Century, and "god" hasn't been around for a long, long, time. Sowe humans should be able to do what we want. And that includes banning all discrimination against other humans.

Well, maybe we are ready to jettison this religious, and secular, restraint on homosexualsbased on the fact that these laws have a clear linkage to the monotheistic religionsand are not based on the current interpretation of our secular Constitution.

But this opens doors that can not easily be shutif our argument revolves around "equality". For instance, our Constitution seems to allow all religions to operate freely in the US. So, why should not Muslims be allowed to marry more than one person, as they do in other parts of the worldaccording to the tenets of their religion? Aren't we discriminating against the practice of Islam, where polygamy is concerned? Same argument for the practice of child/arranged marriagesoften practiced in Asian countries, such as India and China?

And then there is the issue of the minimum age for sexual relations between adults and children. This practice seems taboo here in the US, but not so in many culturesagain practiced often in Islamic societies. Is it not discrimination to deny Muslims the right to their cultural practices here in the USjust because the idea is horrifying to most of us?

This whole idea of non-discrimination as the basis for supporting same-sex marriage opens many, many, doors, that people like Bill Johnson are now going to have to take a position on. If he supports same-sex marriage, how can he not be a supporter of removing the bans on every social practice that most Americans would likely agree comprised the elements of our American morality that helped to create, and sustain, this great nation?

As to Bill Johnson's de-endorsement of the Stephen Pogueso what? Who cares what Bill Johnson thinks? It does demonstrate, however, that you can not trust Johnson when you are being interviewed by him, or his minions. Political candidates offering themselves up to his editorial review would be wise to remember this action, and to demand a complete list of the litmus tests that Johnson intends to apply in his endorsement process before agreeing to meet with him. If the list is too long, or too onerous, then prudent candidates would be well-advised to skip interviewing with the Weekly, and look to other sources for endorsement.

Posted by guest
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 26, 2012 at 8:47 am

Just Passing Through misunderstands the judiciary.

All judges come to the bench with views and opinions on issues in society. They're educated people with life experience. Having a point-of-view and speaking about it literally, or by contributing money, prior to taking on a role as a judge is fine.

What matters for a judge is being able to put aside any personal views/bias when sitting on the bench.

Further, we're talking about Superior Court here, which is a trial court handling day-in/day-out civil and criminal matters. On matters of law, no judge on this Court has binding authority or makes precedent on anything. On matters of fact, juries will be deciding in almost every case.

In sum, The Weekly's flip-flop reveals a single-issue litmus test. Because of this, The Weekly should be ignored.

Posted by Go Bill
a resident of Barron Park
on May 26, 2012 at 9:57 am

You're absolutely right to have rescinded your endorsement. Politics needs accountability. Paying a political price for taking a political position is part of the process. I want people who want my support to be on the right side of this issue. I'll vote against Pogue.

Posted by Equality is a CIVIL RIGHT
a resident of El Carmelo School
on May 26, 2012 at 10:01 am

"A recommendation that turns on a candidate's opinion on a single issue should be ignored."

"I don't agree with a very narrow, single issue litmus test for politicians, judges, elected officials. "

This country is full of single-issue causes:

- Shucks, wonder what Grover Norquist's take on single issue criteria would be.

- Or those that will donate against or vote against a candidate strictly on whether the candidate supports the constitutionally protected right for a woman to choose her health decisions.

Equality is a civil right.

What if Pogue donated to a cause that advocated inequality for a different class of citizens, perhaps on account of skin color or some other criteria? Would one still say "A recommendation that turns on a candidate's opinion on a single issue should be ignored."

Posted by Jess Wondrin
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on May 26, 2012 at 12:25 pm

If this man had provided active financial and public opposition to the same highly divisive and emotional ballot measure, would you have felt the same way, or is taking a position on highly divisive and emotional ballot measures only a problem when it is different than your position on the highly divisive and emotional ballot measure?

Posted by guest
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 26, 2012 at 2:32 pm

Equality is a CIVIL RIGHT, a member of the El Carmelo School community, misunderstands the legal issue underlying this whole controversy.

Equal protection of the laws has never meant that everyone is treated the same. Laws are replete with distinctions. What equal protection under our federal constitution amounts to is similar treatment from the government for similarly situated people.

The controversy of the day relates gay marriage under this test. It's obviously a live societal issue in which people disagree.

The Supreme Court of the United States is the authoritative interpreter of the federal constitution, and it has never held that distinctions based on sexual preference are unconstitutional. Perhaps they will decide this soon. And amending the constitution is available if the Supreme Court's decision is unacceptable in society at large, either way.

Here, a Superior Court (state trial court) judge does not make law on this issue, or any issue. The trial court judge FOLLOWS law made by the legislature and higher courts.

The Weekly's flip-flop on a single issue litmus test should suggest ignoring its endorsement entirely. What says The Weekly if Pogue read/re-read the federal appellate decision on gay marriage and it changed his mind? Would he be the endorsed candidate? This is the folly of a single-issue litmus test: minds can be changed.

Posted by I'll vote for Pogue
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 26, 2012 at 3:02 pm

The Weakly endorsed what has proven to be poor candidates for PA city council too. So The Weakly is full of itself. Everyone I know ignores them.

BTW- Since when did citizens give up the right to an opinion about public policy? If only more MEN were willing to speak up and take a stand for what they believe, like Steven Pogue did in this case.

I respect him for this. What tattle-tales, people calling The Weakly to gripe & complain, trying to derail a candidate, for one issue. No doubt, the same few that complain about everything. Whiners. Never grew up.

How about people that give $$ to each and every candidate, and both sides of an issue, stacking the deck in their favor? I'll vote for Pogue, and happily. Thanks for giving me yet another reason to feel good about it.

Posted by daniel
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 26, 2012 at 4:42 pm

Supporting Prop 8 isn't a "single issue". Denying fellow citizens a basic human right that he himself is enjoying is akin to opposing emancipation, voting rights to blacks and women or the right of Jews to own land. Steven Pogue is unworthy of being a judge, frankly, he is unworthy of being a US citizen. I am heterosexual, but people like Pogue make my skin crawl.

Posted by Steve
a resident of University South
on May 26, 2012 at 6:06 pm

Thank you Palo Alto Weekly! I have renewed faith in the community I live in - and the paper I get my local news from.

As you can see, there are quite a few people around here that still think blatant discrimination is acceptable. Contributions to the hate campaign that was Prop 8 indicate a lot about how a person would punish his/her fellow neighbors because of *any* personally held belief.

A person elected to a position like this should instead be prepared to rule on what's fair, just, and equal for our citizens. The rights taken away from me and my partner by the Prop 8 campaign are too numerous to go into here - but Palo Alto residents like some of the above commenters make us feel like second-class citizens in this community.

I can only hope that if we ever had to visit each other in the hospital after an emergency, one of the above Palo Alto commenters is not at the reception desk - blocking our ability to visit because of discriminatory personal beliefs.

Posted by Michael
a resident of Downtown North
on May 26, 2012 at 7:04 pm

I highly commend the editor for rescinding the endorsement of Steven Pogue. His endorsement and financial backing of Prop 8 makes him undesirable to hold office of Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara Country. Santa Clara County overwhelmingly voted No on Prop 8. We need a judge like Cynthia Sevely who represents the will of the people on this issue.

Posted by daniel
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 27, 2012 at 6:09 am

Jess Wonderin:no, unlike Pogue and those who voted for Prop 8, including you I presume, I don't believe I have a right to deny others the very same rights I enjoy. Pogue and his supporters must have never read the Constitution and the "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" listed among the inalienable rights of man. So, no, I don't believe that bigots and ignoramuses should be deported, they just shouldn't be elected to important positions where their bigotry and ignorance can have any affect on other people lives, like the position of a judge.

Posted by Perspective
a resident of Greater Miranda
on May 27, 2012 at 6:30 am

Hmm..well, then in keeping with the folks who believe that a judge should not actively support one thing or another before becoming judge, I suppose Kagan, and a long list of other Obama appointees should be should be kicked off their positions, including Supreme Court, ?

Posted by guest
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 27, 2012 at 6:57 am

I find the ignorance and fuzzy thinking of Palo Alto public laughable at times, and this is one of them.

Daniel, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, writes:

"Pogue and his supporters must have never read the Constitution and the "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" listed among the inalienable rights of man."

It's Daniel who is not familiar with our constitution: "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" does not appear in the constitution.

Go read it.

In fact, the words are Jefferson's in the Declaration of Independence.

If one actually reads the constitution, and related jurisprudence, one sees that the issue is equal protection under the 14th amendment, as applied to states. There has never been an authoritative interpretation of the constitution that holds that legal distinctions based on sexual orientation are unconstitutional. Obviously, there are arguments on both sides of the issue. This is where we are at.

Prop 8 was a highly polarizing proposition as evidenced by the debate here. I, personally, am grateful that Palo Alto Weekly did the research to unearth this attribute about Pogue because it is on an issue that matters to the community (albeit divided). How you feel about the Weekly's endorsement is probably based on how you feel about Prop 8.

Arguments have ranged from:
- Prop 8 reflects god's design so shame on you.
- Prop 8 shouldn't be a basis for flipping an endorsement because an individual has a right to his opinion
- Prop 8 was discriminatory so I support the Weekly's reversal

On the first point, as some have already acknowledged, the Bible, as many other documents written by humans in their own time, tolerated, if not supported polygamy, slavery, institutionalized racism, stoning, and mutilation (eye-for-an-eye).

On the second point, voters need to base their decisions based on past behavior and not just pledges of intent. Both are valuable to know. Any one decision or action maybe material to some and immaterial to others. A good example of this might be in how you felt about Monica Lewinsky.

Personally, Prop 8 is something that I do have a strong opinion about. As a heterosexual, it didn't affect my rights but it did affect my humanity. I do not believe, reinforced in empirical fact, that gender preference affects your moral fitness to be a citizen, a devoted spouse or a parent. Nor is there any evidence that gender preference is a learned behavior. To the contrary, the evidence points to this preference being strongly innate. Nor is there any corollary that heterosexual relationships are healthier intrinsically. The quality of relationships and resulting families are based on the compatibility and character of the individuals involved. The issue is whether we acknowledge and honor the healthy relationships and families that do exist in the same way that we acknowledge and legally support heterosexual relationships and families.

The US Constitution recognized that there is a potential tyranny of the majority opinion that could lead to a minority being abused. Hence they codified a Bill of Rights. The reality of our history has been an evolution of our agreement on what is in and who is covered by that list of rights.

To deny it, is to reside on the wrong side of history. The fact that Pogue revealed his character on that question is material. The Weekly also showed its character as well.

Posted by guest
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 27, 2012 at 7:21 am

It's noteworthy that The Weekly wrote in its "we were for him before we were against him" endorsement of Pogue that:

"we were less impressed with [Pogue's opponent's] judicial temperament."

Pogue's opponent is a prosecutor.

So there you have it. The Weekly would rather a prosecutorial temperament on the bench because of a more impressive candidate's personal view on an social issue that admits many points-of-view.

It's sadly ironic because a trial judge does not make law on marriage or anything, they follow law. Where the job does have power and discretion, say in sending people to prison, a judicial temperament matters. But less to The Weekly than being PC on gay marriage.

Posted by ignore the weekly
a resident of Midtown
on May 27, 2012 at 9:22 am

Sharons views on gays and Israel have been posted many many times on this forum. Not sure why it is disrespectful and offensive to point them out. Given the level of service that Sharon gets from the weekly one has to wonder which present or former council member she is.

Posted by daniel
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 27, 2012 at 10:01 am

Resident:The Constitution doesn't say that slavery is wrong, that women should be allowed to vote and that inter-racial marriage should be allowed either, does that mean that slavery should be legal, women prohibited from voting and interracial marriage be illegal?
Pogue supports denying a minority the very same rights that he and the majority of the adult population enjoy and take for granted:the right to marry. This automatically disqualifies him from being a judge. And since he is basing his opinion on gay marriage on the Book of Mormons, what does he thing of polygamy?
Since his religious indoctrination seem to take precedent over anything else, how would he adjudicate cases of hate crime against gays, discrimination against gays, or, taking into account his church's appealing record in racial matters, why would any black person appearing in his court trust him?

Like the majority of California voters, I supported Prop 8 in 2008. I still support Prop 8 in 2012.

This is because of many social, moral, cultural, religious and even legal reasons.

There is no "hatred" of homosexuals. There is no "phobia" of homosexuals. There is no "persecution" of homosexuals. I simply disagree with the law and any redefinition of the term "marriage" and feel great concern about the legal consequences that it would impose upon others.

I have no problem with homosexuals receiving the same contractual rights and benefits as married couples. However, just like a young man at Palo Alto High School shouldn't be allowed to shower with girls in the girl's locker room based upon sexual identity, I just cannot support such a redefinition of "marriage."

Equality doesn't mean that we redefine gender, ethnicity or a historic contractual name simply because we want an institution to be called something that it is not.

I am disappointed in the Palo Alto Weekly for punishing a man by repealing an endorsement based upon a donation that he made with his own clear conscience.

Of course, I fully expect to be labeled a "bigot" for sharing my moral, religious or cultural beliefs or scorned for voting according to my conscience. I expect to be told that I have a "phobia" or "intolerance" for others (which is untrue) or that I am on the "wrong side of history." And, of course, I suspect that some might even try to point out the "flaws" of religious faith that doesn't agree with a particular view.

It doesn't matter.

My conscience and moral compass is still that -- my conscience and moral compass. While I also suspect that I will be accused of pushing that conscience and moral compass on others, I suspect that those who say as much will never realize that they are doing the same.

If anyone wonders, I also oppose the practice of abortion in most cases. Of course, I have been attacked for that view in the past too. I was even accused of being an unwitting supporter of the "war on women" supposed by some (ironic since I am a young woman).

Tolerance is a two-way street. You can't claim to be "tolerant" if you don't allow those who disagree with you to, well, disagree with you (whether morally, religiously, culturally and/or via legislation). However, there is also a difference between "tolerance" and a government-imposed "acceptance" mandate by judges or legislators.

Regardless of whether or not a judge strikes down the historic (and twice voter-approved) definition of marriage, it doesn't mean that many people will recognize such a concept. However, it will still be forced upon the people regardless of their conscience.

Those who support it will probably continue to use a flawed anecdote about "racial discrimination" years ago as they attempt to force others to recognize a redefined notion of "marriage."

A more closely related anecdote would be one regarding religion (something that isn't typically identified by sight). Religious discrimination is against the law. However, the law does not require that all individuals recognize a particular religious practice or equate that practice with a historic norm. And, ironically, many of those who opposed Prop 8 are also opposed to the religious morality of voters being forced upon society as a whole.

This is exactly what a legislated (via Sacramento or a court bench) redefinition of "marriage" does. It takes one view of morality and legally imposes it upon everyone else.

Still, it is incorrect to mock, ridicule or vilify those who simply disagree with the redefinition of "marriage" for moral, religious, cultural, natural or legal reasons. No one is "fearful" of homosexuals or calling for "persecution." They are simply asking that their redefinition not be legally forced upon society with all of the legal consequences that it will bring.

Posted by guest
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 27, 2012 at 1:22 pm

As I said earlier this morning, I find the ignorance and fuzzy thinking of the Palo Alto public laughable at times, and this is one of those times yet again.

Daniel, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, just keeps on giving, writing: "The Constitution doesn't say that slavery is wrong."

In fact, the 13th amendment to the federal constitution bans slavery, expressly.

Daniel goes on: "The Constitution doesn't say...that women should be allowed to vote..."

In fact, the 19th amendment to the federal constitution bans denying or abridging voting rights based on sex, expressly.

Finally, some truth from Daniel in that the federal constitution does not address marriage. The Supreme Court settled the matter after many states did one-by-one. The Supreme Court held that men and women of different races are similarly situated to couples of the same race when they wish to marry one another, and merit similar treatment from the government.

Yet, there has never been an authoritative holding that two of the same sex who wish to marry are likewise similarly situated. In fact, in the racial marriage case, the Supreme Court linked marriage as a civil right to "existence and survival" (i.e. procreation).

Many see a non-similar situation for same-sex marriage, and/or that civil unions are similar treatment if gays are similarly situated. That's where we are at.

Posted by daniel
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 27, 2012 at 2:54 pm

Nayeli, are you kidding? You are denying a minority the rights you have, and you label those opposing your [portion removed] intolerance, well, "intolerant"?
Since when is a narrow interpretation of religious faith a basis for public policy? I thought religious faith was supposed to be strictly separated from public policy. Many in the old Confederacy based their support of slavery and their criminalization of inter-racial marriage and relationships on their religious faith. They actually considered it moral, just like you.
The principles of Apartheid were anchored in fundamental religious beliefs. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Wilson
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 27, 2012 at 3:33 pm

> Many in the old Confederacy based their support of slavery
> and their criminalization of inter-racial marriage and relationships
> on their religious faith. They actually considered it moral, just like you.

This was true of the sentiments of most people in every state in the Union up until the defeat of the Confederacy, as well as the colonies that pre-dated the Revolution, at one time or another. Even during the years of the Secession, a goodly percentage of the North were sympathetic to the South, and it's general position on slavery.

While religion was a significant contributor to the nation's view on slavery, everyone knew that slavery was an institution that predated virtually every culture known to history. Slavery has always been associated with the consequences of being on the losing side of armed conflict, long before religion became much of a factor in its acceptance by society.

Bigotry has no place in our judicial system. A jydge who foesn't believe our lesbian and gay brothers and sisters desrve equal protection under the law doesn't have any place on the bench. NO to Pogue.

Posted by Herman
a resident of Downtown North
on May 27, 2012 at 6:19 pm

Nayeli - I could not have said it better. I have never discriminated against anyone I have hired, and have treated all people with respect. But marriage is a sacred act between a man and women. Its as simple as that. Civil Union - no problem. Fortunately, the great majority of people around the world, and in the US (every time it is voted on, and not decided by judges) agree.

Posted by No Thanks
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 27, 2012 at 11:28 pm

Steve Pogue represents a church that brought us polygamy and child brides and then crossed over state lines to bankroll an initiative of bigotry dressed up as morality. Sorry Mr. Pogue. You are entitled to your beliefs and may be fit for leadership in your church but there is no place for bigotry in public office.

Posted by Douglas Moran
a resident of Barron Park
on May 28, 2012 at 3:56 amDouglas Moran is a registered user.

I am confused. The reported Friday night statement sounds like Pogue is against the state recognizing any and all marriages, not just same-sex marriages. It would have been useful to hear a clarification.

Especially since his support for Prop 8 is in conflict with that. The sponsors of Prop 8 insisted that marriage was a "Christian institution" and wanted the state to enforce their interpretation on the whole of society, non-Christians and dissenting Christians alike. Not to do away with state-recognized marriage, but to narrow who could be married. When I asked advocates of Prop 8 why they weren't seeking to demote to civil unions all marriages not performed in a Christian ceremony, they could not answer. Wasn't "Christian institution" an argument that Christian priests should get to decide whether Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, ... could be married (potentially after requiring conversions)? And eliminate civil marriages by Cty Clerks, JoP's, Elvis impersonators, ... Since many Christian denominations regard LDS as a cult, not Christians, Mormons would presumably have been among the excluded. Prop 8 seem to involve the state giving special status and privileges to one religious group.

Whenever I tried to find out what the Prop 8 supporter's real concerns were, their statements fell apart on the first or second obvious question. The similar thing happened in the court hearings.

I wish the Weekly had pursued this matter in more detail. Does Pogue lack the analytical skills to take apart a flimsy argument? Or might he be yet another one of those judges who believes he can ignore the law and precedent in reaching a decision (see "The Roberts' Court" and too, too many others)? Or is he like Rick Santorium, who believes that as a government official, it is "religion before country"? Or what?

----
It is a sad commentary on today that so many like Nayeli define "religious freedom" as the right to use the state to inflict their religious beliefs on large society. Sadder still that they say that is not what that is not what they are doing. Even sadder that s/he continues to spout long discredited "facts", for example that Prop 8 was attempting to overturn the state forcing churches to recognize same-sex marriages. First, marriage is a legal arrangement (a state function) in which churches are one of a wide range of optional agents authorized to perform the ceremony, and are free to choose for whom they perform that service. Second, Prop 8 was not about "protecting" those churches that did not recognize same-sex marriage, it was about those religious groups using raw political power to _prevent_ other religious groups and the civil authorities from performing those marriages. Yes, Nayeli, you are entirely about inflicting your religious views on others.

If Nayeli et al's religious beliefs are so fragile that they cannot stand passing exposure to people with different beliefs, they should withdraw into isolated religious communities (or move to a more compatible country).

Posted by Ethan Cohen
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on May 28, 2012 at 8:39 am

The thing that has been striking me as I read some of these comments, especially those from Nayeli and Herman and others is that the arguments they make seem very similar to arguments made 50 or 60 years ago about equal rights for African-Americans.

Society evolves, although it is true that Judeo-Christian doctrine is against same-sex marriage it is also true that the first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Even beyond that, the idea that just because a law was written thousands of years ago means it should it should still be enforced is ridiculous. If we applied this to everything we would still have slavery, we would be stoning children for disrespecting their parents and football would be illegal.

Over the history of civilization we have realized that these ideas were wrong and have taken steps to correct our mistakes. The argument that to redefine marriage is bad because is changing a historically held notion is identical to arguments surrounding segregation and Jim Crow. As society has evolved that argument has seemed more and more absurd to us. Therefore I can take solace in the fact that this argument in the context of same-sex marriage will seem just as absurd in 50 or 60 years.

The problem with that is of course that that fact does not help gay couples who today are suffering from discrimination and are denied rights that hetrosexual people and couples take for granted.

Posted by Walt
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 28, 2012 at 9:01 am

> The sponsors of Prop 8 insisted that marriage was a
> "Christian institution" and wanted the state to enforce
> their interpretation on the whole of society,
> non-Christians and dissenting Christians alike.

It's been a while since Prop.8 was before the voters. Can the poster produce any documentation to substantiate this point to get us all on the same page.

> It is a sad commentary on today that so many like
> Nayeli define "religious freedom" as the right to use
> the state to inflict their religious beliefs on large society.

As it turns out, the country was very, very, Christian at the time of the Revolution->Constitution, using Christian doctrine/beliefs as the foundation of most of the political system and the laws that followed. The First Amendment meant to them what they wrote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The idea of "separation of Church and State" came along afterwards, never being codified into law.

The idea that there should be a "separation" between Church and Statemeaning that the US is a secular state with a secular government that simply "tolerates" religion can not be demonstrated by any honest reading of history, or US law. It is true that there are people who have pushed very hard for this "separation", to the point that in some places in the US religion, and those practicing religion, have been vilified. This vilification seems particularly obvious in the realm of "higher education" over the past thirty years, or so.

> Churches are free to choose for whom they perform that service

Are Churches really free to discriminate against people whose life-styles are not in consonance with the teachings of the Church? Perhaps the poster is unfamiliar with the state of affairs regarding the attacks on tradition by homosexuals wanting to overturn thousands of years of Church teachings/history/societal influence--

Certainly it's not that unbelievable that in the not-too-distant future, the Federal government might well attempt to force Churches to hire homosexual pastorsclaiming some right under Federal employment law, or the often abused "Commerce Clause" of the Constitution. Maybe the poster doesn't that this might happen, or maybe the poster doesn't care if it doesbut "people of faith" should be concerned, very concerned.

And now with Obamacare, Churches are being forced by the secular Federal government to become involved in various practices which have historically been opposed/banned by the Church/religion for thousands of years (in some cases). The power of the Central Government to force its secular views down everyone's throats has never been more obvious. The conflict between those who wanted one government and no state governments, that was waged during the creation of the Articles of Confederation, and then the current Constitution, continues to chip away at our States Rights, which means, ultimately, our individual rights as expressed in our State laws.

Religion, in the abstract, and Christianity/Judaism in the specific, have been forces that have survived the most powerful, most destructive, secular governments ever created by man. Even if there turns out to be no divinity, no god(s), and Christianity/Judaism turn out to be simply another form of "government" created by man, these relgions will be seen in history's eyes as far more successful than any other form of "government", based on their longevity, and the willingness of people to accept their teachings. Secular governments more often than not are simply the agencies of pure evil. Need we look any farther than the governments of Germany, Japan and Russia, during the 20th Century, to see that evil in its full, unfettered, "glory"?

> Yes, Nayeli, you are entirely about inflicting your religious views on others.

Just as the Federal Government seems increasingly hell-bent to inflict its secular views on all of us. Given how the Republican party came to power in the 1850s with the expressed purpose of ridding the nation of slavery by any method possibleincluding doing away with the Constitutionit would not be hard to see people opposed to the basic tenets of Christianity attempting the same end-run around the Constitution one of these dayshoping to put an end to "religion" once and for allreplacing "god" with the State.

Posted by No so fast
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 28, 2012 at 9:25 am

@Walt, let me shed light on a couple of topics you touch on. This is a good topic for Memorial Day, I think, since it reminds us of the freedoms that fellow citizens have fought and sometimes died to protect.

True, "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution. Nor is there any mention of God or Christian religion. And there are plenty of contemporaneous quotes from early govt documents and the founding fathers themselves that support the notion - when you say "it came along afterwards," are you referring to Jefferson and Madison, who both freely evinced the concept? That's not much afterwards ;-)
A couple of examples:

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article VI, Section 3, The Constitution of the United States.)

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion--as it has itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen"(Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary," 1796-1797.)

And as for people suing churches and threatening their ability to perform ceremonies as they please - anyone can sue anyone at any time for any reason. That they've sued doesn't mean those suing will win. And cases about employment or healthcare practices of churches are fundamentally different from those about for whom they will perform religious rites.

So, Walt, no, I don't think allowing gays to marry undermines the religious freedom of those that oppose it; but forbidding gays to marry, even in a non-religious civil ceremony, in fact does undermine the freedom and equal protection of those that want to do so. FWIW, Massachusetts has had gay marriage since 2004, and it is a non-event there, except presumably for a number of happy gay couples and their families.

Posted by daniel
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 28, 2012 at 9:36 am

That's the thing "discrimination", it is immaterial whether you think gay people should be allowed to marry or not. If you are an unmarried adult you have the right to marry, and no one should have the power to deny others the same rights they have.
Walt has a fundamental misunderstanding of this nation's history. The founding fathers were by and large not religious people. By today's standards many of them would be considered agnostic. They had a deep suspicion of organized religion and didn't want it to have any role in the running of the government. Religious freedom also means freedom from religion. Some faiths have no objection to gay marriage. No one religion is allowed to be supreme to another under the US Constitution. The opposition to gay marriage is based on religious dogma and is a violation of the 1st Amendment that guarantees religious freedom and freedom from religion.

Posted by common sense
a resident of Midtown
on May 28, 2012 at 11:17 am

The Weekly endorses Simitian, who has voted for $16 billion in deficit spending, who continues to "support High Speed Rail done right" at the cost of education & social services, and who has voted for policies which has raised the cost of our utilities & gasoline prices to the highest that they've ever been.

Whereas Mr. Pogue, who isn't even a judge yet, donates to one social issue, which the Weekly should have known about if they had done any due diligence, endorses before not endorsing Mr Pogue....

Posted by Equality is a CIVIL RIGHT
a resident of El Carmelo School
on May 28, 2012 at 12:19 pm

just "yet donates to one social issue"

Yeah, no big deal, except it's an issue of discrimination, equality and the civil rights of one minority class of people.

And the poster who erroneously wrote that we were founded as a Christian nation... not quite. In fact, influences came from all over, such as from these "Christians"....

"Historians in the 20th century have suggested the Iroquois system of government influenced the development of the Articles of Confederation or United States Constitution. ...In 1988, the United States Congress passed a resolution to recognize the influence of the Iroquois League upon the Constitution and Bill of Rights"

My comment was removed so I'll try again. I think it's hilarious that the Weekly didn't think Prop 8 was an important enough question to ask the candidates, and then decided to rescind its endorsement based solely on the candidate's view of that one issue.

Nothing else the candidate said mattered, just his position on an issue that the paper didn't think was important enough to ask about in the first place.

I think that shows how ridiculous the weekly's endorsement process is. It's not an opinion about gay marriage one way or another, just what a poor job this newspaper did when vetting the candidates. (Let's see how long this post stays up.)

Posted by Douglas Moran
a resident of Barron Park
on May 28, 2012 at 2:29 pmDouglas Moran is a registered user.

To those of you who think that the US was founded as a "Christian nation", I suggest that you read The Flushing Remonstrance (1657), the first of what are called The Great Documents of American Freedoms. These ideas were incorporated into the laws of an increasing number of the colonies to the point that its inclusion in the Bill of Rights was a given.

The Remonstrance is only five paragraphs and can be read at Web Link The document is impressive not only for its expression of the ideas, but that it was members of the one religion (Dutch Reformed) standing up for the rights of another religion (Quakers at that moment, but there had been earlier persecutions of Baptists) at the risk to themselves (four were imprisoned).

The fourth paragraph begins: "The law of love, peace and liberty in the states extending to Jews, Turks and Egyptians, as they are considered sons of Adam..." If those founders though of America as Christian, why so prominently and explicitly include non-Christian.

The attitudes behind Prop 8 are some of those that the US was founded in direct opposition to.

Posted by Nancy
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 28, 2012 at 3:06 pm

>The attitudes behind Prop 8 are some of those that the US was founded in direct opposition to.

Islam, Judaism, Christianity all opposed homsexuality in 1657. They still do, if the majorities are considered. Gay marriage: No way!

We do not need to allow the homosexual agenda tail to drive the heterosexual dog.

California firmly rejected homosexual marraige, when it went to a vote. A homosexual judge overturned the will of the people. Now it is headed to the Supreme Court.

It is beyond absurd that the Weekly would pull support for a judge that supported the will of the people, as well as the founding documents of the USA. The Weekly is afraid of the homosexual mafia in this area (witholding ad $$$). I have watched this parade for several years, and it is not pretty.

Posted by Nancy
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 28, 2012 at 3:30 pm

A civil right is one that is derived from the US Consitution, with Ammendments. Homosexuality is not mentioned. As a Black woman, I find it offensive that homosexuals want to equate their various choices and demands to Black American's liberation.

If homosexual marriage is allowed, then why not polygmany and incestual marraige?

Posted by common sense
a resident of Midtown
on May 28, 2012 at 4:21 pm

The hidden agenda here is that gay rights groups want to use this issue to impose on the many of the religious faiths their view of what "constitutes" a marriage; the next step would be lawsuits against churches to make priest "marry" gay couples, loss of federal funding, tax status etc. for charities supported by religous organizations. Look at what's already happened with Obamacare, where the government mandates that religious organization provide free contraception as a part of their medical insurance coverage.

Posted by Thanks
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 28, 2012 at 4:49 pm

@Nancy, not sure you I follow your constitutional argument. The argument on the 14th amendment goes that since the government is in the business of marrying couples, that same-sex couples deserve the same treatment as other couples. The "law" may say otherwise, but the argument is that such a law is unconstitutional.

That's the federal constitutional argument. The argument takes different form under various state constitutions, given their different language. In Massachusetts, the argument ran like this:

Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, writing for the majority, wrote that the state's constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens," the state had no "constitutionally adequate reason for denying marriage to same-sex couples," and "The right to marry is not a privilege conferred by the State, but a fundamental right that is protected against unwarranted State interference." The Court held that the State does not have a rational basis for denying same-sex couples marriage on the grounds of due process and equal protection.

On Memorial Day, we thank those that fought to preserve our liberties under the constitution, including the promise of equal protection.

Posted by Palmer
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 28, 2012 at 4:57 pm

"As a Black woman, I find it offensive that homosexuals want to equate their various choices and demands to Black American's liberation."

You're out on an island. The directors of the NAACP just voted to support marriage equality as a civil right. It was pretty close....

sixty two to two.

"The NAACP's support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people," said Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP"

Posted by Walt
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 28, 2012 at 6:50 pm

> has a fundamental misunderstanding of religion
> founding fathers not religious

Really? Well, how would we go about trying to make a quick determination as to whether of not the founding fathers were religious, or the colonists during the 16th and 17th centuriesleading up to the Revolution? Let's check out the rather interesting on-line exhibit at the Library of Congress on Religion in America:

While there were a great many opinions in the wind about the future of the Colonies, starting after the French and Indian War (Seven Years War on the British/French Side), it is not hard to find that the American churches quite often were at odds with the Crown/Church of England governance under which the Colonists were beginning to chaff--

Jonathan Mayhew
An eloquent proponent of the idea that civil and religious liberty was ordained by God, Jonathan Mayhew considered the Church of England as a dangerous, almost diabolical, enemyof the New England Way. The bishop's mitre with the snake emerging from it represented his view of the Anglican hierarchy.

> founding fathers were agnostics

ww.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel02.html

"Deism" is a loosely used term that describes the views of certain English and continental thinkers. These views attracted a following in Europe toward the latter part of the seventeenth century and gained a small but influential number of adherents in America in the late eighteenth century. Deism stressed morality and rejected the orthodox Christian view of the divinity of Christ, often viewing him as nothing more than a "sublime" teacher of morality. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams are usually considered the leading American deists. There is no doubt that they subscribed to the deist credo that all religious claims were to be subjected to the scrutiny of reason. "Call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion," Jefferson advised. Other founders of the American republic, including George Washington, are frequently identified as deists, although the evidence supporting such judgments is often thin. Deists in the United States never amounted to more than a small percentage of an evangelical population.
---
And even if one wanted to suggest that the Founding Fathers were Deists as opposed to "Christians", that characterization is a far cry from their being "unreligious/agnostic".

IV. Religion and the Congress of the Confederation, 1774-89
The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.
Religion and the State Governments:
h t t p://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html

Many states were as explicit about the need for a thriving religion as Congress was in its thanksgiving and fast day proclamations. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 declared, for example, that "the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend on piety, religion and morality." The states were in a stronger position to act upon this conviction because they were considered to possess "general" powers as opposed to the limited, specifically enumerated powers of Congress.

> Founding Fathers not very religious

For those following this discussion, please take the time to read through the Library of Congress' excellent overview of how religion (most Christian) played an important part in the founding of the Colonies, and the Republic.

There are always people who are poorly educated/informed, and those with a wish to revise history to suit their own purposes. Any one who claims that the "Founding Fathers were not very religious" (implying that the American people were not religious at the time), falls into one of these two categories. Either way, euch people should be ignored, and avoided.

Posted by Douglas Moran
a resident of Barron Park
on May 28, 2012 at 8:26 pmDouglas Moran is a registered user.

Walt,
Just because the founders of the US were predominantly religious people does not mean that they meant the government of the US to be one heavily influenced by religion. Quite the contrary. If you were to study a little history you would know this. And if you were to study a little logic you would spot the problems in the arguments you are parroting. But since you clearly have chosen to listen to outlets with a long history of pervasive lying, I suspect that you don't care about the truth of your arguments, only that they confirm your biases (in case you didn't catch it, FNC has deflected complaints about the many lies on their shows by stating that those shows are only for entertainment, not information).

Sharon--why don't you provide links for your claims. Your so-called "quotation" from a black politician was made up by you. that would have been news and there is no trace of it.
Plus the numbers you claim for the NC and Cal votes are bogus as well.

" It is what it is"
Not to you, Sharon. To you it is whatever fabrication you decide to post.

Shame on you, Sharon for your deceptive postings. Civil rights and freedoms are not something that are voted on. Maybe you should explain your hostility towards gays

Posted by Palmer
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 29, 2012 at 9:39 am

Sharon: Please provide proof of your claims.

Your ignorant mindset is not supported by real world evidence:

The directors of the NAACP just voted to support marriage equality as a civil right. It was pretty close.... sixty two to two.

"The NAACP's support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people," said Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP"

Why are so many people using religious reasons for this issue?
Same sex marriage is a CIVIL issue.
No one is imposing on your religious beliefs by allowing civil marriages. If your religion wants to allow/accept them, that is fine.
If your religion does not accept them, that is their right as well.
Just don't think your religious values can be imposed on those who do not believe what you do.

By the way, one man/one woman is not the only form of marriage accepted in the Bible, so these references to thousands of years of history are pretty weak.

Posted by Walt
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 29, 2012 at 11:21 am

> Just because the founders of the US were predominantly religious
> people does not mean that they meant the government of the
> US to be one heavily influenced by religion.

Who says? Can you cite sources?

The Constitution is not a stand-alone document. It needs to be viewed with a number of other sources of thinking, from the Bible, the Magna Charta through Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of pamphlets that circulated in the Colonies prior to the emergence of our current form of government.

The first two Presidents of the United States were patrons of religion--George Washington was an Episcopal vestryman, and John Adams described himself as "a church going animal." Both offered strong rhetorical support for religion. In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand." Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the third and fourth Presidents, are generally considered less hospitable to religion than their predecessors, but evidence presented in this section shows that, while in office, both offered religion powerful symbolic support.

When the Constitution was submitted to the American public, "many pious people" complained that the document had slighted God, for it contained "no recognition of his mercies to us . . . or even of his existence." The Constitution was reticent about religion for two reasons: first, many delegates were committed federalists, who believed that the power to legislate on religion, if it existed at all, lay within the domain of the state, not the national, governments; second, the delegates believed that it would be a tactical mistake to introduce such a politically controversial issue as religion into the Constitution. The only "religious clause" in the document--the proscription of religious tests as qualifications for federal office in Article Six--was intended to defuse controversy by disarming potential critics who might claim religious discrimination in eligibility for public office.
----

Of course, the question of how "religion" should actually enter the picture of how the new Republic would be governed took a "back seat" to the issues of what it means to create a country, more-or-less, out of "whole cloth". The Federalist Papers spend a lot of time fretting over the "Tyranny of the Monarch" and the possibility that the Republic would wither away quickly, and become another monarchy with any Monarch at the helm. It is true that concerns about the new Republic becoming a theocracy, or even an oligarchy of religious interests, was not particularly high on their "radar", at the time. None the less, these folks clearly were concerned about having "religion" in the "wheelhouse", giving the leaders strength, and boundaries.

> Quite the contrary. If you were to study a little history
> you would know this.

Care to site some sources.

> And if you were to study a little logic you would spot
> the problems in the arguments you are parroting.

Care to identify this "logic flaw", rather than simply alleging that it exists?

> But since you clearly have chosen to listen to outlets with
> a long history of pervasive lying,

And what "outlets" would those be? So far, the Library of Congress is providing the bulk of the substance for these arguments. Are you suggesting that the US Government has a "long history of pervasive lying", or is it the Church that you are accusing of perennial prevarication?

> FNC has deflected complaints about the many lies on their shows
> by stating that those shows are only for entertainment, not
> information.

Don't see Fox News cited in these arguments--but you're free to find the words posted herein on a Fox web-site, validating your rather dismissive use of the word "parroting".

Posted by daniel
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 29, 2012 at 11:48 am

The opposition to gay marriage is strictly religious. Most reform rabbis will marry a gay couple as would pastors of various progressive liberal Christian churches and other denominations. So even in the religious community there are myriads of opinions about gay marriage. Certain Christians are trying to deny basic civil rights to a minority by imposing their religious "values" on others, a violation of the 1st Amendment.
In a decade or two, young people will look at us and say:they were fighting about that?!, just like these days young people who learn that interracial marriage used to be illegal scratch their heads and roll their eyes.

Posted by Timothy Gray
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on May 29, 2012 at 12:05 pm

Look behind the numbers and you will find that the Weekly's endorsements have nearly a perfect correlation with the size of the campaign advertising budgets.

This is neither a compliment or criticism -- it is just an observation that may lead to understanding the Weekly's decision. Remember, this is the same Advertising Circular (the word newspaper intentionally left out) that asks for charitable contributions to "support local journalism" when a more forthcoming request would be for the publisher to simply ask for people to make deposits to his personal bank account.

Does anyone else feel repulsed by the ethics of disguising a profit making venture as a "charitable cause"?

Respectfully shedding some light on what seems to be a sacred cow topic.

Well said, Timothy. This, the Simitian endorsement, as well as the weekly's recent foray into blatant censorship do not really reflect well on it.
Let's see how long your posting lasts before it is deleted.

Posted by Enough!
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on May 29, 2012 at 12:26 pm

I thought we were free to think what we want in this country. I also thought that our votes are private. Regardless of what you think about Prop 8, more egregious is the lack of respect for the voting process. The schools are teaching our students that voting is a way of participating in government, and making their voices heard. That their vote counts. It most emphatically does not, since time after time in this state, the will of the majority of voters is superseded by the will and actions of one judge. The President is picked by the electoral college. Nothing in the voting process actually reflects the reality of the voters except where it's fodder for non objective journalism.

Posted by Enough!
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on May 29, 2012 at 12:39 pm

If you think that how a Judge acted on his own personal behalf is an issue, then why would U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker be allowed to preside over this case when he is gay? The point is, you can have a personal belief, but the system being what is is, Judges are supposed to be able to set aside their personal beliefs and consider a matter objectively. Human nature being what it is, that of course is difficult, but we have to understand that and have faith that the Judges will honor their oath to do the best they can when making a decision over such divisive matters. If you like a candidate on every other issue, why withdraw support over one, and more important, why make into such a negative? The Weekly is entitled to withdraw support, and even give a brief reason why, but this feels a little like pandering.

Posted by What about the children?
a resident of South of Midtown
on May 29, 2012 at 1:02 pm

@ Timothy Gray's comments are always excellent. So did the PA Weekly endorse him when he ran for council? Hmmm. I think not. Another red flag regarding this newspaper - but at least Tim's salient comment has not been removed. Thanks to the editors, for that.

@Nayeli's comments about same sex marriage are wonderful. I agree with everything. It is not about discrimination.

I have a question for you, Doug:
If you have children, would they have been raised in a healthy, balanced fashion if they had two mothers (like two of your wife) or two fathers, like two of YOU?

I mean two people(like clones) that would get along really well; no arguing, or divorce, or anything that would cause a split in the family, from the birth of a child, to their middle age, or older. It would be a stable home environment. But... a same sex couple, and not one male/father and one female/mother.

Would your own children be hampered in any way, Doug, if your wife, or you, were not a part of their lives?

My point is this - studies show a child is best reared in households with a mother and a father, for balance. Each fulfills a role that the other is not likely to fill in the life of a child.

Society is to create legislation that accomodates the majority of its citizens, in an ideal fashion. The family is the smallest social unit, where we (in an ideal world) are to learn how to become good citizens. Same sex unions lack that balance.

Other reasons not to have same sex marriage include:
If marriage were redefined, waiting in the wings is: Polygamy (as long as the people are adults, then who can discrimiate against them?)

This is truly weird, but last weekend, I spoke with someone that believed it ought to be alright to marry a pet. The man is serious.

The poor children of these unions. Show and Tell day at school may see a child bringing a Golden Retriever, introducing it to the class as "Mom". No kidding. Whose to say they can't? The sky is the limit, once erosion regarding what constitutes marriage begins.

Marriage ought not be redefined. It must remain as a union between one man + one woman. Children deserve an opportunity to have an ideal home environment. It's up to society to ensure they get that chance. It's NOT all about adults. It's about the children that couples almost always want to have, to complete their "family".

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 29, 2012 at 1:56 pmHmmm is a registered user.

Nancy's right in that most of African American EPA is against same sex marriage. It's nothing to be proud of & I truly hope that their thinking evolves away from it. It's pretty much the same in the Pacific Islander & Latino community. Again, nothing to be proud of. None of these groups that are against gay marriage equate it w/civil rights issues of people of color.

I know this isn't fully relevant to the article, but it is reflective of a good-sized community. It's also one of the reasons I don't belong to a church in EPA.

After reading the Weekly since it's inception I disregard the Weekly's political endorsements, and most especially those for city council.

But I do appreciate the Weekly for not suppressing this information once it came to their notice. From the above posts I might conclude that the majority would want to hide perfectly legitimate information about a candidate.

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 29, 2012 at 2:08 pmHmmm is a registered user.

Palmer - prove it's a canard. All the Prop 8 work I was surrounded by in my community, the lack of a stance by City Council & other community leaders was enough for my jaw to drop repeatedly until I realized the whys of their being against gay marriage. Church members did work for Prop 8, I overheard multiple conversations in support of it, drove by countless yard signs & saw EPA residents at Prop 8 support rallies.

The few community leaders and/or community workers who've been against it are mostly African American - & they've been out in the world much more.

It doesn't matter what the NAACP president does in that it's not affecting the past. It remains to be seen what influence the decision has on the present & future. I truly hope that the NAACP decision makes an impact in my community.

My prediction is that it'll be an uneven issue in the black community, & that there will be even less support from the Pacific Islander & Latino communities for the near future unless there's a drastic change. Many of these people come from paternalistic, church-going cultures were family has yet to be include the definition of same sex couples with or without children.

Posted by Douglas Moran
a resident of Barron Park
on May 29, 2012 at 2:22 pmDouglas Moran is a registered user.

RE: What about the children?:

Your concern about children in same-sex households is reversed. The legality of same sex marriage doesn't change whether such households exist -- they already do and have for a long time. Rather it improves the protections for children in those households. Consider the case where the biological parent is on a business trip and the domestic partner has to handle the child's medical emergency. Reportedly, domestic-partner and civil-union status can cause all kinds of delays that being married wouldn't -- because of confusions by the _people_ administering the process. Delays can turn what would have been a routine surgery into a life-or-death matter. And for the seriously ill, having a family member present is advantageous, supplementing the care and monitoring by the hospital's nurses. Why should a child from a same-sex household be denied this because your religious beliefs oppose same-sex marriage?

None of my friends whom I know to be LGBT have children, but the anecdotes of their problems with each other in similar situations gives those reports credibility to me.

Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 29, 2012 at 3:02 pm

The more I read about the arguments for and against here shows me that this is a language issue rather than anything else.

Traditional marriage is not (as someone humourously pointed out above) looking to the Bible for guidance on marriage from the examples contained therein. (The Bible is full of sinfull people which is why Jesus Christ was born, but that is another discussion.) Traditional marriage is what has been the tradition and legally changing a tradition is what Prop 8 was about.

Children and procreation of such children is partly covered by traditional marriage, but so are many other legal situations e.g. hospital visitation, inheritance, benefits, immigration, etc. Children who are not the product of a traditional marriage are exactly in the same position as a step child from a previous relationship, or in any other family relationship where the two adults in the home are not married to each other - a very common occurrance.

So rather than changing the language that we all understand, the definition of the word marriage, does not need to be changed just the law to enable a supplementary word or phrase used to cover all legal attributes of traditional marriage to the new word. In the same way that we no longer have policemen, firemen, air stewardesses, usherettes, bellboys, etc. and now have police officers, firefighters (or paramedics), flight attendants, etc. we can have spousal unions and spouses as legal terms rather than marriage, or husbands and wives. From this we can call our civil union what we want to call it and our domestic partner what we like. The traditionalists will know that marriage is still untouched and those that want to hide the fact that they are in a non-traditional marriage can call it what they like.

However, if it barks and wags its tail it is a dog, not a cat even if we are told otherwise. A marriage is between one man and one woman who are not related, and trying to call anything else a marriage is only making a mockery of the language.

The ideal is HEALTH. The ideal is for emotional health for all children, that's what I'm talking about here. Long-term health. Forseeing a vacation where a parent's temporary absence causes a problem is not what I'm getting at. I mean the ideal family scenario.

What is best for ALL children? Two mothers, two fathers or a mother and a father? What is best for YOUR children, Doug?

If you have children, are you telling us you were not needed in their lives? Another woman would be as good, or better, as your influence on them?

Would your wife not be needed in their lives? Another man, just like you, would be fine for your own children, as her influence?

If you agree that neither you nor your wife's influence was all that important on your own children, then what would they say? Would your children agree with you? What parent could have your children have done without? Mother or father?

I provided links to numerous studies showing that what you claim is false. I and someone else asked for you to provide some proof for your claims. Instead we get more of the same bogus arguments [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Palmer
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 29, 2012 at 3:30 pm

"Palmer - prove it's a canard." Nope, you're the one who made the claim: "that most of African American EPA is against same sex marriage" Prove your claim.

I can tell you that it wasn't just Ben Jealous who made the statement that marriage equality is a civil right, it was the entire NAACP Board - with a 62-2 vote.

That said, EPA's demo's have changed significantly in the last two decades; if memory serves: 50% Latino, 17% Black, 10% Islander, etc...

Look at any recent poll - Latinos are at about the same approval as the general population. On top of that, we are undergoing a seismic shift as we write. Poll out in the last month have shown accelerated acceptance.

Posted by Nancy
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 29, 2012 at 3:50 pm

>Marriage Equality is a civil right.

Of course it is, and I never said it was not. Marriage is between one man and one woman. If it is not between one man and one woman, then is it between consenting adults?

It is ironic that Black people have to lead the way for white people to get back to fundamentals. We have always been strong, even with our own errors and foolishness. We are not wrong on this issue of homosexual marriage. It is not a civil right, it is an attempt by the homosexuals to violate the norms of society, over the ages.

If you all believe that consenting adults can marry, then you need to accept homosexual marriage, polygmany, incest. Do you white and Latino people really want this?

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 29, 2012 at 3:50 pm

I'm certainly not arguing that it's a civil right. The work I've done on the issue is exactly to that end. It's the backwards residents of my city who don't agree. LGBT rights as civil rights has yet to be truly relevant in EPA. I button holed City Council members on this very issue and both of them said what I'm saying here: the residents don't yet consider it relevant. Remember when straight white people felt the same way? I do - it wasn't long ago at all.

Seriously - you think EPA has a poll about marriage equality? That's as Palo Alto as it gets! Good luck w/your know it all attitude about people you're not very familiar with. Yeah, you cite demographic data, but have you lived here? Have you tried to convince residents LGBT rights are civil rights? I have. I did anti-Prop. 8 work here & the majority of people were not ready to listen.

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 29, 2012 at 3:54 pm

Nancy, can you explain the logic of your sentence, if you care to?

"If you all believe that consenting adults can marry, then you need to accept homosexual marriage, polygmany, incest."

Palmer - if you're paying attention, this is a classic example of what I dealt with doing anti-Prop. 8 work here. Nancy's African America, I'm white. We both are females living in EPA. See the differences in pov? How quickly do you think povs like her be changed?

I don't agree w/Nancy, but after many years of living here, I understand her pov.

Posted by Nancy
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 29, 2012 at 5:17 pm

If conseneting adults can marry, then they can marry. This means heterosexuals, homosexuals, polygmaists and fathers and adult daughters. To suggest otherwise would be bigotry, according the libertines that try to force us to accept homosexual marriage.

Let's just take polygamy. The crowd that says that adults can make their own choices, including homosexual marriage, regradless of the norms of society, must also accept that plural marriage is just dandy, or they are just complete bigots, according to their own standards.

If we open up marriage to anything other than a union between one man and one woman, we are opening our socity to immense risk. This was understood by Black people, and many white people and Latino people, as we passed prop 8. A homosexual judge threw our opinion overboard. It is an outrage.

I am confident that Black people will stand tall on this issue. White people are caving, but not all of them. Latino people need to join us Black people, if you want to save your people. If White people want to join us, they are welcome, but they need to stand up.

Posted by Nancy
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 29, 2012 at 5:42 pm

Like I said before, the true opinion of Black people, about homosexual marriage, is prop 8, not the NAACP. The NAACP is out of touch with the majority of Black people. The NAACP has been co-opted by the homosexuals and their supporters, because it depends on the money given to them by homosexuals and their supporters.

Yes, we Black people will stand up. I think Latinos will, too. Many whites will, too, but probably not the majority. Whites need to take back their own traditional families. White people have always been a problem for Black people, whether they were slave owners or not. Black people still believe in a man and a woman. We need to go back to a family unit, but we have no doubts about what a marraige means. Whites should not try to undermine our values.

Posted by ignore the weekly
a resident of Midtown
on May 29, 2012 at 6:07 pm

What about the children and Nancy make claims that they present as facts without providing proof. Sound familiar? Am I the only one who notices the similarity between them and another prolific poster who had trouble being honest? Just wondering

Posted by Palmer
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 29, 2012 at 6:23 pm

'Nancy' said: "The NAACP has been co-opted by the homosexuals and their supporters, because it depends on the money given to them by homosexuals and their supporters. "

Nancy - any proof?

Hmmm: "because the NAACP has changed it's tune than all black people have." Never said all, nor did I give any percentages. I will bet that future polls, by next year, will reach a 60/40 rate in favor of equality, both general population and African Americans

'ignore': sva, I agree, my bet is that behind the mask is maybe S, most likly G/J. We'll never know. "Nancy"'s last paragraph was overreach, oversold, too much and not genuine, imho.

Posted by ignore the weekly
a resident of Midtown
on May 29, 2012 at 7:03 pm

That was 4 years ago. What about now? Attitudes change over time. The pendulum is swinging towards acceptance of gays and gay marriage. Pretty harsh comments regarding gays and whites. We are still waiting fOr proof regarding your claims about the NAACP and your claimss regarding blacks. Surprised that a " black" person like yourself is promoting discrimination

Posted by Steven Pogue
a resident of another community
on May 29, 2012 at 7:28 pm

I have watched with interest the amazing poopstorm that the Weekly's rescission of their endorsement of me generated. Much more interest than the endorsement itself, it would seem.

The gentlemen at the Weekly were very gracious to me and we had a most pleasant interview. In their initial endorsement, they had kind words for me which I appreciated.

I certainly had nothing to hide. If I had been asked about that, or about who I voted for in 2008, or anything not related to a question that I might have to decide in court, I would have answered.

I respect the Weekly's right to base its endorsement, or rescind its endorsement, on any issue it considers relevant, just as I have the right to support or oppose any position I have an opinion about. That is the beauty of freedom of expression. That this was a deal-breaker for them is entirely acceptable. There are counties, and probably local papers, in the state where the opposite view would have been a deal-breaker. I appreciate living in a place where people can have different views on things and still be nice to each other.

My thoughts on this issue and many other issues are complex and evolving. That's part of getting old, I guess.

My sincere best wishes to everyone. Even those who seem to hate me. Believe me, the feeling is not mutual.

A very statesman like and dignified statement by Steven Pogue--well said and well done.

A key foundation of Western Civilization is the definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman.

This principle has distinguished Western Civilization from all others since the 1st century AD and is why it has succeeded above all others.

Homosexual marriage has nothing to do with "civil rights" it has to do with promoting and advocating homosexual behavior in our public schools and forcing Churches to go along with the homosexual agenda.

"'I've never seen any homosexuals who had to go to the back of the bus because they're homosexual.

-unlike Blacks were in the past.

Tolerance of Gays is fine - forced advocacy of the homosexual agenda in our schools and Churches is a step too far.

Same sex marriage would mean the end of religious freedom in the USA-look what happened in Boston-the Catholic adoption agencies were driven out of business after 200 years of great Charity work

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 29, 2012 at 8:56 pm

That's true, Palmer.

While I don't agree w/Pogue's opinion, I know that marriage equality isn't important to everyone, nor do they see it the way that I do. I am a little disturbed that Pogue has a lack of privacy in this matter, not because he should be different from anyone else, but because it blurs the line between personal & professional in his profession. I've seen people make fair decisions involving lifestyles and politics with which they disagree, so I guess that's what's bugging me here -'m interpreting that there's an inference that that would be the case w/him.

All in all, this thread shows that a number of people don't see it as a civil rights issue, they think lesser of gays for not being like straights so they shouldn't have the same rights. Fundamentally, they think that there's something very wrong w/gays.

When I think historically of the needless suffering & heartbreak experienced by those in the LGBT community because they risked so much to be true to themselves, it's staggering. And the suffering they endured because they couldn't be true to themselves is nearly as bad. I'm reading a novel right now set in the 19th century in which one of the plot points involves a married society man who's gay & the total ruination it would mean for his family if word got out.

I'm so happy & relieved that in my life time, I've been able to support an issue that I believe in, even after my Catholic education. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the next 20 years.

Posted by Douglas Moran
a resident of Barron Park
on May 29, 2012 at 10:43 pmDouglas Moran is a registered user.

To the PAOnline Staff on my deleted comment:
Why is it not disrespectful to completely misrepresent what someone said, but it _is_ disrespectful to point it out?

In Nancy's moral culture (based on her self-identification), shaming is an essential part of the community's dealing with transgressions and transgressors. On what basis do you presume to exclude her from her own morality?

Posted by Douglas Moran
a resident of Barron Park
on May 29, 2012 at 11:36 pmDouglas Moran is a registered user.

On the personal/political divide:
I accept candidate Pogue's right to _personally_ believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, as well as his religion's right to not recognize it within their religious context.

However, with the donation (and presumed vote), he crossed a line because he was now advocating that his religious belief should be law. That has implications for how he would govern as a judge.

This difference is the basis for JFKennedy's rightly famous statement in the 1960 election on his Catholicism, so Pogue should have been fully aware of the distinction.

BTW: I view the hostility of various religions to same-sex relations to be an example of something that was once legitimate, but is now badly outdated. In the past, societies needed their "breeders" to be popping out children with regularity, and tolerating same-sex relationship essentially allowed for "free riders", a well-known economic/moral problem.

Similarly, I have no problem with a religion saying that it is immoral for its members to eat pork, shellfish, ..., but it would be anti-American for them to try to make that a law for everyone. The highly selective outrage of various religions is "interesting": When was the last time you encountered a religious group picketing a seafood restaurant as a den of iniquity?

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 29, 2012 at 11:45 pm

Thank you, Doug Moran - I hadn't considered the distinction that you pointed out.

As to Sharon's point that the acceptance of gay marriage means the end of religious freedom in the US - she's wrong. Churches can't be forced to marry people whose relationships that the church is inherently against.

"A key foundation of Western Civilization is the definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman."
That is a stretch, given the divorce rate and the history of marriage.

"This principle has distinguished Western Civilization from all others since the 1st century AD and is why it has succeeded above all others."
Why not provide us with some proof, Sharon

"Homosexual marriage has nothing to do with "civil rights" it has to do with promoting and advocating homosexual behavior in our public schools and forcing Churches to go along with the homosexual agenda."
Back to the old scare tactics--homosexuals behavior in schools. But I guess, Sharon, you feel it is alright for churches to force us to go along with their agenda (i.e. bans on abortion or certain literature????)

""'I've never seen any homosexuals who had to go to the back of the bus because they're homosexual."

Are you speaking from personal experience?? How would you know? Previously you attributed this quote to a North Carolina black politician. Care to tell us who he is? A link to where he actually said it or as I and others suspect this is a made up quote by none other than Sharon.

"Tolerance of Gays is fine - forced advocacy of the homosexual agenda in our schools and Churches is a step too far."
Gee, thanks Sharon for agreeing to "tolerate" gays. There is no "forced advocacy". Why is the truth such an issue with you, Sharon?

"Same sex marriage would mean the end of religious freedom in the USA-look what happened in Boston-the Catholic adoption agencies were driven out of business after 200 years of great Charity work"
That is a good one, Sharon. Same sex marriage would not affect any religious organization. It would not affect any straight couples marriage. But if you have any proof, let's see it (besides your outrageous claims) . And do you really want to talk about the Catholic Church in Boston and their issues????

Posted by daniel
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 30, 2012 at 7:28 am

Most of the arguments against gay and lesbian marriage are flawed and reactionary. They are reminiscent of the arguments against interracial marriages fifty years ago: that it will harm children, send the wrong moral message and devalue the institution of marriage.

Most Americans, perhaps with the exception a few in white robes, will agree that the ban on interracial marriages was nothing more than prejudice at work. Soon, we will look back at the arguments against same-sex marriages and see, like the ban on interracial marriages, that they are backed by nothing more than bigotry, prejudice and fear.

Posted by Bambi
a resident of Downtown North
on May 30, 2012 at 8:23 am

Nice to see everyone so passionate about their beliefs. I see that the Weekly editorial staff encourage FREE Speech by allowing so many nasty posters. Caring about and speaking out on your beliefs is our right. Great job Weekly.

You wrote, "Perfect example of someone wanting to read something into it, despite what it actually said!"

What a ridiculous comment! When I was speaking of there being no need to apologize, I was referring to what he said in his post. He wrote, "My thoughts on this issue and many other issues are complex and evolving. That's part of getting old, I guess."

If you pull out your Webster's dictionary, you will notice that the word "apology" can mean both an expression of regret or A DEFENSE OR JUSTIFICATION IN SPEECH OR WRITING. There is no need to "apologize" -- express regret or attempt to defend or justify -- because of "complex" or "evolving" thoughts about clear-conscience beliefs.

It is ridiculous to accuse someone else of "wanting to read something into it" too. Your condescending remarks are likely motivated by disagreement with what he (and others) have said on the issue at hand. Yet, there is no need to issue an apology for a position. It was like President Obama suddenly and conveniently speaking about his "evolving" view on marriage as a concession for not establishing a firm position on the matter.

The next time that you write a condescending remark, you might want to pull out the dictionary. Oddly enough, English isn't even my first language yet I know what the word "apology" can mean.

While a church may or may not be forced to "marry" people (or risk losing their tax exempt status), this has little to do with the extent of the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment.

What if a person -- based upon their religious (or moral, traditional, cultural, natural views) -- refuses to legally "recognize" the "marriage" between homosexuals? Will there be any legal consequences? Will they, by default, be forced to recognize something in name? What if you own a business that you want to operate under religious principles? There have already been lawsuits in which small businesses have been sued in certain states for "discrimination." What happens to a religious bookstore that refuses to hire or extend benefits to a "married" homosexual couple?

What if a religious university (ala Georgetown or Notre Dame) refuses to recognize homosexual "marriage?" And, of course, what happens when other states have retained the traditional definition of the term "marriage" or voted like California residents have (twice) in retaining the traditional definition of "marriage?" What about teachers who will be forced to define "marriage" (via a newly redefined definition) to our children? What legal concessions and protections are made to individuals who cannot -- with a clear conscience -- call such a union a "marriage?"

Do you understand how this is not one of those "who cares if it doesn't affect you" type of discussions? It will affect nearly everyone in California.

Daniel is suggesting that his view is the majority opinion and that those who think otherwise are reserved to a handful of people wearing "little white robes." There are a few recent polls (but not all) that indicate a shift in opinion. However, most polls that are just a year old say otherwise. Yet, even the "favorable" polls that are quoted show an evenly divided split on this matter. And this is BEFORE how such a new definition would affect others is realized. But, Daniel is presenting his view as if the vast majority agree with his view -- when the people of this nation are evenly split on the matter.

So, Nayeli, basically you are saying it is okay to discriminate against a group of people because certain institutions may not be able to adapt to the changes???? You seem upset that people are "forcing things" on religious organizations, but have no problem with religious organizations forcing their beliefs on everyone.
Does that also mean that person based upon their religious belief can refuse to recognize a heterosexual marriage if it was not carried out in their church or was a civil ceremony.
You will have to do better than that to justify discrimination.

I am saying that it is not "discrimination" to simply not recognize something due to moral, religious, cultural, natural or other reasons. And, if there is any "discrimination," it is when one group is "favored" over another by the state. In this case, some are pushing the state to embrace a certain new definition of "marriage" that is at odds with the traditional definition and the moral, religious, cultural, traditional, natural and other views of others.

As for religious organizations: This has nothing to do with them. Those organizations will not recognize something that is contrary to their doctrinal views, beliefs or creed. However, those individuals who hold to the practice of a religious view can be discriminated against by being forced to recognize a redefined notion of "marriage" that is completely at odds with what they view to be sacred. You are accusing those individuals of doing the very thing that you are trying to do -- push a particular moral view upon society.

So, before you go around accusing others of "discrimination," please take a good long look in the mirror.

"However, those individuals who hold to the practice of a religious view can be discriminated against by being forced to recognize a redefined notion of "marriage" that is completely at odds with what they view to be sacred"
It is hilarious that you make the claim that an individual will be discriminated against because a gay couple will be married to one another. ridiculous statement without any basis in facts whatsoever. The fact that a gay couple is married will not affect you or anyone else,nor will it affect any religious person. How exactly will this religious person be discriminated against? Because he may have to accept something that is counter to his religion means that he is being discriminated against. In that case, I am being discriminated against by the Catholics and the Mormons.

Really, Nayeli, you need to come up with a real argument (of which, there are really none) to justify the continued discrimination in marriage against gay people.

"So, before you go around accusing others of "discrimination," please take a good long look in the mirror."
I suggest you go back and read my posts before you hurl baseless claims.

If you want to accuse individuals of looking for something that no one said, please read your last post. You wrote, "It is hilarious that you make the claim that an individual will be discriminated against because a gay couple will be married to one another. ridiculous statement without any basis in facts whatsoever."

That is something that I didn't say. I didn't say that people will be discriminated against simply because homosexual couples will be married. Rather, when the state imposes a redefinition of the term "marriage" -- a legal contract -- then there can be some major legal consequences for those who do not recognize that type of union as a "marriage."

There is a world of difference between something (like a definition) being "rejected" and one that is "imposed." In this sense, individuals want to impose a new definition of "marriage" that is at odds with the moral, religious, cultural and traditional consciences of approximately half of the state.

This whole discussion is about a DEFINITION. Like I said, I have no problem with any couple receiving legal, contractual protections or opportunities. However, this does not mean that some group can redefine "marriage" and then impose it legally upon society. I am a Hispanic woman. Regardless of whether or not I feel like a "black man," I shouldn't expect the state to redefine my ethnicity or gender in order that I can use the "men's" showers at Stanford when attempting to receive a scholarship from the "UNCF." Nor should I expect to enter into a civil union with my husband (because that is what a "marriage" is for).

Again, I have no problem with the rights of individuals to secure legal contractual benefits. However, I do have a problem when the state is prompted to make me recognize it as a "marriage." At this point, I don't care what an organized "church" institution teaches. Nor do I care what homosexual organizations believe. However, it is an infringement upon my rights if I am forced by law to recognize something as a "marriage" that is not a marriage.

And, please stop accusing me of "discrimination." Your ridiculous accusation is nothing more than nonsense. OF course, when you think that you are right and everyone else is wrong, then what is the point of a discussion about this issue? This nation and world is much larger than your circle of friends in the Bay Area.

Nayeli you said:
"However, those individuals who hold to the practice of a religious view can be discriminated against by being forced to recognize a redefined notion of "marriage" that is completely at odds with what they view to be sacred."

Any more questions????

"Your ridiculous accusation is nothing more than nonsense"
You seem to have the feeling that I am accusing you of discrimination (once again trying to read something that is not there). I am saying that you arguments are ridiculous

"This nation and world is much larger than your circle of friends in the Bay Area."
Yes and a nice chunk of the world recognizes gay marriage. And in fact the pendulum is swinging in favor in this country as well. Once we get past the ridiculous arguments that religious and religious people will be discriminated against if gays are allowed to marry

May I suggest you shorten your replies. I barely read your convoluted attempts to continue the discrimination against gay people

Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on May 30, 2012 at 1:26 pmNayeli is a registered user.

@ svatoid:

I don't think that you understand. Let me say it more clearly: This is NOT about two people being joined contractually. It is about a segment of the State trying to FORCE every individual, company or organization to recognize their redefinition of a legal contract. By imposing this upon all people -- regardless of their moral, religious, cultural, traditional beliefs -- it amounts to discrimination.

While a "nice chunk" of the world recognizes gay "marriage," many do not. This definition should not be legally imposed upon society. You can call it whatever you want, but don't force individuals to violate their clear conscience by calling it something that it is not.

And, please, refrain from silly accusation. They are offensive, not particularly clever and are reflective of an individual who appears to only tolerate those who agree with him/her.

And, if you would read what was said, you would know that what I wrote was not "discrimination" any more than making a designation between a men's and ladies' room based upon sexual identity. They are both "bathrooms" and "contracts" and serve the same purpose. They just referred to by a different term.

"I don't think that you understand. Let me say it more clearly: This is NOT about two people being joined contractually."
Yes, that is exactly what this is about--giving gay people the same rights as other people have. Period end of story.

"It is about a segment of the State trying to FORCE every individual, company or organization to recognize their redefinition of a legal contract"
You keep on making this statement, which has no basis in fact whatsoever. That is what happens when you live in a society--occasionally laws are passed that apply to everyone--some people will constantly whine that they are being "forced" to accept it. For example if a church does not want to marry a gay couple they will not be "forced" to.
It is a bogus argument--another in a long line of hysterical arguments against gay marriage. This is just the latest attempt by those that feel that not allowing gay people to marry is okay because a few people will be offended.

"By imposing this upon all people -- regardless of their moral, religious, cultural, traditional beliefs -- it amounts to discrimination."
Here we go again--the bogus argument that allowing gays to marry will cause straight people to be "discrminated" against. The vast majority of people, regardless of their moral, religious, cultural, traditional beliefs will not be affected by gay married couples.
But I guess you have no problem with religious groups and people trying to ban abortion ,for example. They are trying to force their religious beliefs in the population as a whole.
Claiming that allowing gay marriage will cause discrimination against that do not support it is ridiculous, unfounded and laughable.

"And, please, refrain from silly accusation. They are offensive, not particularly clever and are reflective of an individual who appears to only tolerate those who agree with him/her."
For someone who complains about silly accusations, you should not make the blanket claim that people will be "discriminated" against because gay couples are allowed to marry. ANd speaking of tolerance, it seems that you have no tolerance for a gay couple that wishes to marry and your crictisms are clearly based on the fact that I dare to disagree with you.
My comments are not meant to be clever--they are made in response to someone who wants to continue the discrimination (yes, that is who is being discriminated against) against gay people

Homosexuals DO have the same contractual rights! If they don't, then they should receive them. However, this contract just isn't called a "marriage." This is what the discussion is about.

As a woman, I have a right to a BATHROOM if I visit the State Capitol. It doesn't mean that I can go to the "men's" room. I can sue the state for "discrimination" or try to redefine the "men's room" to include women, but the men's locker room is still for, well, men.

Your idea of "discrimination" is funny. You are trying to do the very thing that you claim to despise from others. You want the state to adopt your definition/morality and impose it...and then get angry if anyone with moral, religious, cultural, traditional, natural or other views would try to do the same.

This is about a DEFINITION. Period. No one is arguing about the contractual rights. I couldn't care less about any two people who enter into and receives contractual protections. However, I do have a problem when the definition of "marriage" is redefined and then imposed upon everyone else.

I am sad that you cannot understand this and choose to accuse me -- and the majority who voted in 2008 -- of "discrimination."

Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 30, 2012 at 4:45 pm

This can affect many types of business.

What about a photographer, wedding planner,etc. who refuses to work at a gay "wedding"? Are they going to be sued for not providing the service?

What about someone who wants to be known as a "groom" with his "bride" on his wedding license? Do they want to be known as person A and person B?

How does a gay "married" couple get addressed, are they Mr and Mr or Mrs and Mrs?

What happens if one member of the "married" couple wants to change names so that they are both the same name?

What happens when this "married couple" moves to another state or another country? What happens when a "married couple" visit another country and have some type of accident? Their marriage status could well not be recognised there.

Posted by What about the children?
a resident of South of Midtown
on May 30, 2012 at 4:50 pm

Nancy and Nayeli -
You two are doing a spectacular job of responding to people about this subject. Thank you. One thing I noticed about the comments of those that disagree with us is that when they weigh in, they'll often take one of three tactics:

First, they'll complain to the Weekly editors about those that disagree with them, accusing other posters of being the same person. For instance, someone above said Nancy, Nayeli and me, "What about the Children", are the same person. Just because the three of us think similarly? How silly is that?

This is an important issue. It IS possible for three distinct persons in this area to have the same opinion. All of us ought to be able to share our thoughts, without being falsely accused by those with sour grape attitudes (and who likely DO themselves what they accuse others of?) It's a term called: "Projection". I've enjoyed reading what Nancy and Nayeli have shared.

Second, they'll claim those that oppose their position are not intelligent. Like "I'm smart and you're not." -- it's childish.

Third, they refuse to answer direct questions, responding only to points about which they feel they could "win" but they give few if any valid facts. Lots of links to nothing much.

Intimidation is often used as a tactic to get attention, sort of like the Weekly having changed its mind about this candidate, just because the man has a mind, an informed conscience & he lives what he believes. I like him. He's rare. Before now, he was just a name on a ballot.

I must say I'm thrilled the Weekly withdrew its support from Pogue. This is terrific advertising for him, and FREE. I'm telling everyone I know to vote for him. There are a lot of like-minded people, even in THIS area, and even in Palo Alto! Imagine that. Nancy and Nayeli-you're great! Keep educating everyone by sharing your thoughts!

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 30, 2012 at 5:01 pm

I find these latest comments unreadable & it's not because I disagree. It's the fundamentally prosaic tone taken by those opposed to gay marriage & their complaints about potential "discrimination" (Definition: Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership - or perceived membership - in a certain group or category. It involves the actual behaviors towards groups such as excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups. Are you sure this is the right term for you to be using?).

And if you're gonna keep calling them "homosexuals" over & over & over & over again (what's the deal w/refusing to call them gay or lesbian, or the LGBT community? Might it be - gasp! - bigotry?), would you please change it up by at least spelling it "homosekshuls" or emphasizing it as "homo-SEX-u-als." Thank you in advance.

Posted by ignore the weekly
a resident of Midtown
on May 30, 2012 at 5:14 pm

Resident-a photographer is not obligated to work for anyone. A photographer and the client would enter into an agreement. The photographer would know exactly what the job was and could refuse it.
Another bogus and ridiculous claim by the pro, discrimination crowd.

Posted by Nancy
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 30, 2012 at 6:37 pm

I cannot be intimidated.

Homosexual marraige is not accepted by the majority of Black and Latino people. It may be by whites, but a whole lot of whites also oppose it. Prop 8 proved this.

I have heard the argument that all consenting adults should be allowed to marry, or it is bigotry and hatred. I completely disagree. Only one man and one woman. Not one man and five women. Not one man and his daughter. Not one man and another man, or several men. Not one woman with another woman, or several women.

One man, one womam is a marriage. For all of you thinking that there is a change in attitudes, just put it up to a vote again in California, if the Supreme Court decides to put it back on us.

White people, among their elites, are trying to force us Black people to accept the rule of the homosexual path. Many Latino people think like me. So do some white poeple. Prop 8 proved this.

Posted by ignore the weekly
a resident of Midtown
on May 30, 2012 at 7:01 pm

Nancy, when were you appointed as the spokesperson for all black people? No one is trying to intimidate you. You are free to view however you like and please do not tell me that had prop 8 not passed you would not have wanted to go to court to overturn the vote. I also think if the vote would be held again, the results would be different. Attitudes have changed quite a lot in the last 4 years. Any way you are free to discriminate in your home, however in society discrimination is discouraged. bTW what is the " rule of the homosexual path"? Sounds like another scare tactic we have heard from other posters

Posted by ignore the weekly
a resident of Midtown
on May 30, 2012 at 8:22 pm

Sharon, care to provide some proof for your claims (not that we actually believe that your postings are based on any facts)? Have you read Pogue's comments above (not that anything anyone says matters to you)? And where have we heard the HIV/AIDS claim before? In every thread that Sharon could work it in.

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 30, 2012 at 8:32 pm

"The campaign against attorney Steven Pogue is a good example of this terrorism and witch hunt by homosexual activists"

Who are these "homosexual activists" involved in the witch hunt/terrorism on folks like Mr. Pogue? Has anyone read about these witch hunts/terrorism? I haven't. I did read The Weekly's thoughtful rescind of support & Mr. Pogue's thoughtful response. All parties behaved in a respectful manner. I didn't see any evidence of either terrorism or witch hunts; what I saw was a difference of opinion on something that matters to both parties. Huh.

If anyone has info involving a witch hunt or terrorist acts by homosexual activists, I'd very much like to educate myself about the matter. Thank you.

Posted by Maurice
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on May 30, 2012 at 9:32 pm

I appreciate the comments from a few of you. Nayali has stated this perfectly. It is a shame that some people try to bully others in the name of tolerance. Like it or not, there are millions of people in this state who do not want a judge to force the people of this state to force them to recognize such a union as a marriage. They are entitled to the views too. This is not just a Christian issue. I am Jewish and this is not something that I feel comfortable with.

I can't speak for Nancy, but I tried to explain in one of my posts that the "right" to a contract is not in question. Homosexual couples have those rights. It just isn't called a "marriage." It is called a "civil union." They are the same contract...just with different names. A homosexual couple cannot enter into a "marriage" and a heterosexual couple cannot enter into a "civil union."

This is why the public "bathroom" gender analogy is relevant. They are bathrooms that are separated by the sexual identities of the users. Those identities are clearly defined by the state and aren't meant to "discriminate" either.

As a Hispanic woman, I can attest that the vast majority of the members of my ethnicity will not call a civil union a "marriage" even if the state were to try and redefine "marriage" as such. I feel confident that the same can be said of African Americans too. While this may be due to deep moral and religious beliefs in our culture, they are also moral in nature.

Again, no one is calling on anyone to throw stones or hate homosexuals. We simply do not want the a judge or legislature to be pressured into redefining the term "marriage." There are very deep legal ramifications to this that are overlooked or ignored.

In this context, the issue is also over a judge who held a view with a clear conscience. The Palo Alto Weekly didn't agree with the moral, religious, cultural or traditional and/or legal motives behind Mr. Pogue's desire to donate to cause (supported by a majority of California residents) that retained the long-time definition of "marriage," so they rescinded an endorsement that they previously gave him on the basis of this one issue.

Someone else pointed out that this issue represented a litmus test. The editors rejected this man for ONE REASON -- that he followed his own clear conscience from whatever reasons he felt at the time in regard to the state's role in the definition of "marriage." As a result of that one issue where "informers" told the Weekly, his litmus test was declared a "failure" and their endorsement was rescinded.

"Like it or not, there are millions of people in this state who do not want a judge to force the people of this state to force them to recognize such a union as a marriage. "

The above is another one of the bogus arguments put forth by the anti-gay marriage clique. No one is going to be forced to recognize anything. Do you think a heterosexual married couple will be bothered by the fact that a gay couple is married? In general allowing gay marriage will not affect the people on the street in any way, shape or form. The argument is empty.

"As a Hispanic woman, I can attest that the vast majority of the members of my ethnicity will not call a civil union a "marriage" "
Nayeli is now the spokesman for the ENTIRE hispanic community in the state. While Nancy is the spokesperson for the ENTIRE Black community in the state. Note how they do not provide any proof for their claims.

"We simply do not want the a judge or legislature to be pressured into redefining the term "marriage." "
I guess Nayeli is then against mixed marriages (between a black and a white person). It was the courts that threw out the law barring them and thus redefined the term marriage.

ANyone else notice how a certain "group" of posters always feel the need identify themselves with their made up ethnic background????? Put two and two together.

To be clear: I have just as much of a right to a belief as you do. There is no need to be mean-spirited in this. I am not throwing stones at you or anyone else.

First of all, a redefinition of "marriage" by a judge or group of legislators in the state will be binding to the people of the state. This forces individuals to "recognize" something that they believe to be incorrect due to strong moral, religious, cultural, natural (etc...) beliefs. So, it IS the equivalent of the state being pressured to define a moral issue in opposition to others doing the same. It is just that the state is being pressured to take an opposing stance on it that goes against history, religious faith and a longstanding linguistic and legal definition.

And, of course, I never said that I am the spokesman for the entire national Hispanic community. However, unlike you, I do know my community quite well. Also, I know what the polls reflect. You can do the same.

Again, please quit with the accusation that I am against "mixed marriages." If anything, it is highly offensive to members of the racial and ethnic minorities -- who are identified by the color of the skin -- to be lumped together with a group that is based upon their sexual nature. The discrimination that I have experienced in my life was because of what I looked like.

And, of course, your little analogy is flawed because homosexuals aren't trying to marry heterosexuals -- and they COULD get married to a member of the opposite sex if they wanted to (because that IS the definition of "marriage" -- one man and one woman).

As I said, this is about a DEFINITION. Homosexual couples can and should have the same contractual rights and legal protections as married couples. However, the term for their union is NOT a "marriage." It is called a "civil union." I don't mind if they call it something else. However, it will not be recognized as a "marriage" by a large percentage of this country who embrace a historic definition of "marriage" based upon moral, religious, cultural, natural and legal norms.

No one is calling for discrimination. I am all for ANY two individuals to be allowed to enter into a legal social contract. However, a judge or a group of legislators in the state shouldn't be able to go against the will of the people (twice) and change a definition simply because people aren't satisfied with having the same rights but desire a new definition of the term "marriage" to be imposed upon the State too.

As for your last comment, I have no idea what you mean. If you are trying to suggest that I ALWAYS "identify" myself, well, that is how it is in life. People SEE that I am a member of an ethnic minority. And, since the issue was raised about members of the minority community and how they react, well, I made mention of it. I can't pretend to know the reasons of others who have done the same.

But, please, learn use tact with your posts. Your constant barrage of attacks, criticisms, flame-baiting and insinuations are troubling at best and they don't help your rebuttals at all.

"This forces individuals to "recognize" something that they believe to be incorrect due to strong moral, religious, cultural, natural (etc...) beliefs."
Once again with the bogus "forcing individuals" argument. No couple will be forced into a gay marriage. No church will be forced into marrying a gay couple. There are plenty of laws and regulations that people object to for various reasons, however in our society you learn to live with them. AS I stated before In general allowing gay marriage will not affect the people on the street in any way, shape or form. The argument is empty.

"However, unlike you, I do know my community quite well."
My "community" is almost 100% in favor of gay marriage. So chalk up another laughable statement to you.

"But, please, learn use tact with your posts. Your constant barrage of attacks, criticisms, flame-baiting and insinuations are troubling at best and they don't help your rebuttals at all."
Only you seem to have a problem with my response. The editors have no issues, apparently. I guess besides bogus arguments, you are now trying to make it sound like I am attacking you!!! Nice try, Nayeli.

If we want the state to get out of the "marriage" business, then there would be no issue here - marriage would be like "confirmation" or "bat mitzvah" or any other religious rite, and any religious group could do (or not do) what they please.

So this is all about what the state does. If the state is going to "marry" people, then they have to be willing to provide that service to all eligible couples. It can't just be those that certain people think should be eligible - there's that pesky equal protection requirement to deal with. And since the preference of certain people for moral, religious, historical, cultural, etc., reasons doesn't represent a compelling state or national interest, the state can't exclude same-sex couples.

No-one is forcing dissenters to do anything except accept the logic of the constitution - the state is just following through on its constitutional obligation. You can change the equal protection clause (wow, I'd like to see the tortured wording of that proposal - Nayeli, give it a try!) or you can get the state out of the marriage business (civil unions for all). Or you can just accept same-sex marriage, be happy for the wedded couples, and move on to more pressing issues.

Regarding your "community:" I live here too...and so do many others. During the Prop 8 vote, it failed overwhelming here. Yet, about 44.4% of Santa Clara County voted for it (and nearly 40% of San Mateo County). So much for your "nearly 100%" claim.

"Regarding your "community:" I live here too...and so do many others. During the Prop 8 vote, it failed overwhelming here. Yet, about 44.4% of Santa Clara County voted for it (and nearly 40% of San Mateo County). So much for your "nearly 100%" claim."

Again with the 4 year old stories. You clearly do not know who my "community" is. You claim to be speaking for all hispanics and I am speaking about a specific community as well. I think you can figure out what that community is.

Amusing how in other posts you claim that the voters have spoken on Prop 8, but you mention how it overwhelmingly failed here in Santa Clara to try to make a point.

"You keep claiming that my posts are a "waste" of your time. Then, please move on."
I am. That is why I do not address every point in your long postings.

The "equal protection" clause doesn't apply to a defense of the redefining of "marriage" in this case. Why? Because homosexual couples already have EQUAL PROTECTION. They are called "civil unions." The contract of heterosexual couples is called a "marriage." The contract of homosexual couples is called a "civil union."

It is all about the name.

There are plenty of names that aren't "equal." No matter how much I desire (barring some form of irreversible surgery), I will always be a female on legal documents...and a Hispanic. This is a "designation" -- but I still have all of the rights of, say, a white male. Does that make sense?

Four years ago isn't that long ago...when you are going against 200+ years of California history. Besides, I didn't know what "community" that you are referring to. I now assume that you are speaking of the homosexual community?

As for the "overwhelming" failure of Prop 8 here: I mentioned it to show just how it was not quite so "overwhelming." When nearly half of the population of the Bay Area voted FOR the proposition, it shows you that there is a huge amount of opposition in regard to the redefinition of "marriage" here.

And, once again, please keep your condescending remarks to yourself. You constantly try to belittle me...and I suspect it is because you disagree with my views. Please stick to the topic instead of meandering into personal attacks. It doesn't help your cause.

"An appeals court ruled Thursday that a law that denies a host of federal benefits to gay married couples is unconstitutional. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples."

"The appeals court agreed with a lower court judge who ruled in 2010 that the law is unconstitutional because it ... denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns."

"Four years ago isn't that long ago...when you are going against 200+ years of California history."
It is along time for this issueWeb Link
59% now favor gay marraige in California, up from 51% in 2008.

"As for the "overwhelming" failure of Prop 8 here: I mentioned it to show just how it was not quite so "overwhelming." When nearly half of the population of the Bay Area voted FOR the proposition, it shows you that there is a huge amount of opposition in regard to the redefinition of "marriage" here."
You are way off. from your link:
55% Napa against
66% Sonoma againt
71% Santa Cruz against
74% Marin against
76% San Francisco against
62% Alameda against
55% Santa Clara against.

Add up those number and you are no where to your claim that nearly half of the bay area voted for prop 8. More bogus claims.

"And, once again, please keep your condescending remarks to yourself. You constantly try to belittle me...and I suspect it is because you disagree with my views. Please stick to the topic instead of meandering into personal attacks. It doesn't help your cause."
More bogus claims. I am not belittling you--your comments are doing it all by themselves. And I am not engaging in personal attacks. You seem to have issues with criticism of your comments and view any such criticism as "condescending remarks" and "personal attacks". Sounds like an extension of your previous ploy of claiming "discrimination"--now when people question your comments you claim you are being attacked.
ANd my cause is doing quite well, thank you.

@Nayeli - it's hard to take seriously such a specious argument. They are equal, only the names are different?? One could really run with that. How about using different names for mixed race marriages ("mixed unions"?); or marriages between older woman and younger men ("cougar unions"?); or pick your favorite? After all, it's just a name, right, why should anyone mind?

And sure, you are female and hispanic (or whatever). But the only legal distinctions the government can make on those designations are those where there is a compelling state interest.

Just as it was determined that separate is inherently not equal in schooling or public accommodations, you can't have different names for the "same thing" and call it equal protection. It is either the same or it is not.

Posted by What about the children?
a resident of South of Midtown
on May 31, 2012 at 11:30 am

Nayeli is doing a Herculean job of keeping on topic, presenting a sound position regarding her (Latino) view. So where is Nancy, our representative for all black people in California?

We have a Jewish voice on this blog, with Maurice having weighed in. Thank you, Maurice. Now we need to hear from Asians.

If Nayeli is representing ALL California Latinos, and I shared I am white - I will represent ALL whites in California! I call: "DIBS" on that role! Of course, I say that, in jest -----

I forgot to mention two more tactics the PC opposition uses are:
1) to exaggerate and
2) to speculate about UNRELATED issues they are arguing

Each are expemplified in the jab "Ignore the Weekly" wrote that states Nancy must think she represents ALL blacks & Nayeli must think she represents ALL Latinos.

An example of exaggerated *speculation* is seen when Svatoid wrote:
"I guess Nayeli is then against mixed marriages (between a black and a white person.."

How silly is that? What a leap! Further, it's off topic! Nayeli, Nancy & I support marriage between one man & one woman, regardless of ethnicity: any combination of black/white/brown/Asian can be joined in marriage, have children, as long as it's 1 MALE & 1 FEMALE.

About the public vote:
We have heard from over 30 states already, most recently, just a few weeks ago. When asked, the American public does not want to REDEFINE marriage. Our court system is shoving homosexual "marriage" down our thoats. The average person (regardless of ethnicty, faith background, and location) is starting to object more vocally now. Steven Pogue has his finger on the pulse of the majority of the population in America.

One last point: Svatoid's comments are often lengthy. Yet he/she complains about the length of Nayeli's posts. I find Nayeli's comments to be both fascinating and right on the mark.

Her thoughts are excellent contributions to this issue. Well worth reading and not that long. Thank you, Nayeli! You have a gift of patience, and I greatly admire you for it.

"Nayeli is doing a Herculean job of keeping on topic, presenting a sound position regarding her (Latino) view. So where is Nancy, our representative for all black people in California?
We have a Jewish voice on this blog, with Maurice having weighed in. Thank you, Maurice. Now we need to hear from Asians."

Funny how these "different" people all feel the need to let us know what they are. I think I know why.

"I forgot to mention two more tactics the PC opposition uses are:
1) to exaggerate and"

Who was it that said recently that the vote in the Bay Area was not overwhelmingly against Prop 8 despite the proof presented in the link that she provided (nayeli--an anti-gay marriage advocate)

"Each are expemplified in the jab "Ignore the Weekly" wrote that states Nancy must think she represents ALL blacks & Nayeli must think she represents ALL Latinos."
Well when Nancy states:"Homosexual marraige is not accepted by the majority of Black and Latino people." And Nayeli makes a similar claim, one can assume that they are representing all latinos and blacks.

""I guess Nayeli is then against mixed marriages (between a black and a white person..""
Context, What about the children?, context. Since Naylei stated that she was against courts redefing marriage, I assumed that she was against that court decision--I am only using what she said.

"Our court system is shoving homosexual "marriage" down our thoats. The average person (regardless of ethnicty, faith background, and location) is starting to object more vocally now."
Wrong again:Web Link
"Polls in 2012
A May 22 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.[13]
A May 17-20 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal, with only 39% opposed, a low-water mark for opposition in any national poll so far.[14][15]
A May 10 USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken one day after Barack Obama became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage,[16] showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President's endorsement.[17] A May 8 Gallup Poll showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.[18]
An April Pew Research Center poll showed support for same-sex marriage at 47%, while opposition fell to an all-time low of 43%.[19]
A March 7-10 ABC News/Washington Post poll found 52% of adults thought it should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, while 42% disagreed and 5% were unsure.[20] A March survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found 52% of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44% opposed.[21]
A February 29 - March 3 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 49% of adults supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40% opposed.[22]"

"One last point: Svatoid's comments are often lengthy."
If you would bother to read my posts, you would see that about half of them are quotations from other posts that I am replying to,. But why single that out unless....

"You have a gift of patience, and I greatly admire you for it."
Good that you admire yourself

I already explained that the "overwhelming" comment was in response to your "nearly 100%" comment. I wasn't aware of which "community" you were referring to. Like I pointed out, 44.4% of Bay Area residents supported the traditional definition of "marriage."

And, interestingly, the state as a whole supported Prop 8. You can complain that this was "nearly four years ago" -- but it is what it is.

And, yes, you are belittling me. It is a shame that you aren't astute enough to realize it. You don't have to agree with me. You don't have to agree with the majority who voted for Prop 8 in 2008. And, you don't have to agree with the reasons that people hold to the traditional definition of marriage that you wish to redefine.

However, you should at least not try to paint us as "out-of-touch" or "extremists" when you are unwittingly pointing the finger at approximately HALF of the people of this state. I can respect your right to an opinion even if I strongly disagree with it.

@ Wow:

I don't know what to tell you. Equality doesn't mean that I could shower with the boys when I was in a public high school. We have a different set of showers for that.

I tend to agree with the concept that you mentioned previously. The state should not label something as a "marriage" if some people are going to complain that their union doesn't fit under the definition. Let the state call them "contracts" and let the people refer to them as they wish.

*BTW, when I say "state as a whole," I mean that a majority of voters approved the Constitutional definition of "marriage."

When this makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court, I feel confident that the High Court will uphold the voice of the people. After all, "marriage" is a definition of a particular contract -- and there is a duplicate contract referred to as a different term -- that provides the SAME contractual benefits and protections.

Still, I am going to bow out of this conversation. Before I go, I would like to point out (again) that millions of residents of the state -- and most other states -- will not recognize a civil union between homosexuals as a "marriage." The state should not redefine "marriage" as such since so many people will reject such a definition. And, of course, there should be NO legal ramifications for individuals, business owners or organizations who refuse to call such a union a "marriage" if doing so goes against the free exercise of their faith, morals, traditions, cultures or other beliefs and norms.

And, svatoid, you really need to learn how to use tact. You are condescending and offensive with those with whom you disagree. Such an attitude won't win "supporters" to your cause. In fact, I hope that my children never turn out that way -- and this has nothing to do with any "community" to which you belong. It is about your attitude toward those with whom you disagree.

I may not agree with what you say or believe and your choices may be different than what I believe to be right. However, I support your right to say it when you do so without malice. I just wish that you would return the courtesy.

"An appeals court ruled Thursday that a law that denies a host of federal benefits to gay married couples is unconstitutional. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples."

"The appeals court agreed with a lower court judge who ruled in 2010 that the law is unconstitutional because it ... denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns."

"I already explained that the "overwhelming" comment was in response to your "nearly 100%" comment."

But you never bothered to find outwhich community I was referring to. But just to remind you your comment was:
""As for the "overwhelming" failure of Prop 8 here: I mentioned it to show just how it was not quite so "overwhelming." When nearly half of the population of the Bay Area voted FOR the proposition, it shows you that there is a huge amount of opposition in regard to the redefinition of "marriage" here."

You clearly state that nearly half of the Bay Area voted FOR (capital letters yours) despite the numbers provided in the link you posted. BAcktracking alert.

"And, interestingly, the state as a whole supported Prop 8. You can complain that this was "nearly four years ago" -- but it is what it is."
As I am sure you are aware, the way our initiative system works, just because something s voted on by the people, doe snot mean that it is constitutional--that is why it os going through the court system now. Many initiatives approved by the people have been tossed out by the courts

"And, yes, you are belittling me."
If you say so or feel that you need to play the victim.

"However, you should at least not try to paint us as "out-of-touch" or "extremists""
When you are bringing up a series of bogus and ridiculous arguments (i.e. claiming that a person is being discriminated against because a gay couple may be married and it may offend his religious beliefs) and when new polls (not 4 year old results) show that 59% of people now support gay marriage than you maybe out of touch.

Posted by Palmer
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 31, 2012 at 12:40 pm

More evidence of the seass change under way in the last two weeks:

"A new, independent, statewide poll finds that an overwhelming majority of voters approve of the Washington's law extending civil marriage to same-sex couples. Washington voters approve of the law by a 54-33% margin. In addition to extraordinary support by Democrats (87%), the poll also found significant support among Independents, nearly mirroring the full poll, at 52-36%."

"The only poll that counts is the ballot box. Prop 8 proved that California is not in favor of homosexual marriage."
Let me say it again. the way our initiative system works, just because something s voted on by the people, does not mean that it is constitutional--that is why it os going through the court system now. Many initiatives approved by the people have been tossed out by the courts

"Mayor Reed, in San Jose, refused to be forced into supporting homosexual marraige."
Since you mention mayor reed he says:Web Link
"Reed has said he supports anti-discrimination laws and domestic partnership benefits for gay couples but not same-sex marriage, a matter he argued is for the courts to decide."
Notice that he does not say it is fr the voters to decide

"I can gurantee that his favorability among Black voters will go up."
How do you guarantee that? Have you done polling??? Results please.
Say hello to Nayeli and What about the Children?

No, the ACCESS TO A CIVIL CONTRACT is a "right" that is (and should be) equally protected. However, to force the people of California to include a homosexual couple under the definition of "marriage" is NOT a "civil right" any more than it is a civil right to change the term "male" and access to public men's locker rooms to include me (a "female").

You see, you are making this out to be some form of discrimination. No one is preventing any two people from getting a communal contract. If you are given the same opportunities, protections and legal assurances but the contract is simply referred to by a different name (to nominatively differentiate the type of contract), then it is not "discrimination." It is merely a legal term.

I do find it funny that you are using a few recent favorable polls today (*that STILL show a nearly evenly divided view) as a demonstration of "public sentiment" even though no one was quoting any polls throughout the past decade. And, of course, most of these polls do not explain the far-reaching legal consequences for such a redefinition of the term "marriage."

Many people might agree that homosexual couples should have legal protections that are equal to those in a "marriage" -- but not necessarily the same NAME upon that contract. I was "polled" recently (over my home phone) and the question was about whether or not the definition of "marriage" should be changed, but whether or not I think homosexual couples should be entitled to all of the same rights and privileges as married couples. I said YES. Yet, I would not call it a "marriage." However, I wasn't asked a question about the definition of the term "marriage."

And, my response to svatoid was just that -- a response. I have tried to keep it civil...even though nearly every post of his has been accompanied by condescending rhetoric. Go back and read over our posts again.

"You see, you are making this out to be some form of discrimination."
And your side is not claiming that person who is opposed to gay marriage because of religious beliefs will be "discrminated" against because there is a gay married couple in the state!!!!!!

"And, my response to svatoid was just that -- a response. I have tried to keep it civil...even though nearly every post of his has been accompanied by condescending rhetoric."
For those of you who follow Nayeli's posts on this forum, this is a common theme. When people disagree with her she/he is quick to claim that people are being rude and condescending.

And this is after Nayeli previously stated:
"Still, I am going to bow out of this conversation."

"An appeals court ruled Thursday that a law that denies a host of federal benefits to gay married couples is unconstitutional. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples."

"The appeals court agreed with a lower court judge who ruled in 2010 that the law is unconstitutional because it ... denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns."

Marriage equality is a CIVIL RIGHT.

You don't have to like it. You may be uncomfortable with it.

Too bad. Go ahead and say again - Say someone is not astute enough or they are "condescending and offensive".

Posted by Palmer
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 31, 2012 at 1:24 pm

"White judges can try to reverse the will of the people, but it won't work, especially among Black people. "

Meanwhile, the only recent (the last two weeks) EVIDENCE of the feelings of the African American community is this: "The NAACP's support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people," said Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP.

So we have anonymous "Nancy" claiming to be part of, and representing the whole community, vs Ben Jealous and 62 of the 64 directors of the NAACP.

"White judges can try to reverse the will of the people, but it won't work, especially among Black people."
Oh now it is a race thing??? Whites forcing things on blacks? Really????????
Please provide us with the new data showing that blacks are still opposed to gay marriage?
And as I have stated many times, the will of the people is not always constitutional.

"An appeals court ruled Thursday that a law that denies a host of federal benefits to gay married couples is unconstitutional. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples."

"The appeals court agreed with a lower court judge who ruled in 2010 that the law is unconstitutional because it ... denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns."

Gay marriage has failed, every time it is put to the people, inlcuding white people, in the voting booth. That is the honest poll.

Do those who support homosexual marriage also support plural marriage? If they claim that they do not, what is their bigotry against consenting adults to marry? I completely reject plural marriage, and I also completely reject homosexual marriage. Marriage is one man and one woman. It is the compass that has compelled us foreward over the ages.

"Polling does not reflect the will of the people on this issue of homosexual marriage."
Of course the question really should be--should the will of the people determine basic rights. DOes the will of the people trump constitutionality??

Did you actually read the title of the link you posted?
(Polls on gay marriage not yet reflected in votes)
Suggesting that it will soon be reflected at the ballot. But anyway....

"Do those who support homosexual marriage also support plural marriage? If they claim that they do not, what is their bigotry against consenting adults to marry?"
This is a bogus and unrelated argument.
Not really sure how a gay married couple would affect you personally, Nancy. What about couples that are living together but not married (heterosexual) are you offended by them??

Posted by Palmer
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 31, 2012 at 2:01 pm

Continual emphasis on race. Most interesting.

How did you like the bio on the judge? She's an awesome person. A sister of great ability, strength, courage and intelligence. I am proud to share many things with her and am proud of my country to have her interpreting the Constitution for us.

Posted by What about the children?
a resident of South of Midtown
on May 31, 2012 at 2:41 pm

Today's court decision illustrates the importance of our populace voting for those candidates that best reflect our views. It's why I will vote for Steven Pogue. Everyone I know will vote for him too. Writing in a blog is great. But voting is key.

Our courts are not representating the will of the American people.
Has everyone read this related election article on PA Online?

Do you know where Ms Brouillet stands on gay marriage:Web Link
"Social Issues
Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding social issues.
Yes a) Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?
No b) Do you support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman?"

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 31, 2012 at 3:30 pm

Pal,er & svatoid - why do the anti-gay marriage (marriage equality) folks think that gay marriage equals the need to okay incestual marriage and/or polygamy? I'd hate to think that all of these thoughtful people against marriage equality are trying to continually denigrate civil rights - I am SURE that they must have some cogent reasons that have them pushing that line of reasoning. Perhaps you've discovered what their slippery slope thinking is based on? I'm still scratching my head.

Anecdotally, I was just at a business appointment w/a professional whom I trust but don't know very well. It was really nice to hear this person mention their same sex partner in a matter of fact way. How far we have come!

Posted by Palmer
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 31, 2012 at 3:37 pm

"How far we have come!" Indeed. On we are on the cusp of a sea-change; very exciting times for equality (excuse the inelegant metaphor.)

It's been a long battle for the gay community. While always comfortable with supporting equality, I personally only recently 'came around' to vocally support the battle for equality.

re your question about "why".... we all know the answers, there's very few actual reasons that justify the fight against marriage equality. And we never hear them say their real reasons outright, even in an anonymous forum. Just isn't acceptable anymore, is it?

"As states have legalized same-sex partnerships, the rights of gay couples have consistently trumped the rights of religious groups.

Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, says that does not mean that a pastor can be sued for preaching against same-sex marriage [although a pastor was arrested in Sweden for doing just that--it was a very mild sermon, but it did not state that homosexuality is good].

But, he says, that may be just about the only religious activity that will be protected

...Stern says if the early cases are any guide, the outlook is grim for religious groups."

A few cases:

Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory.

A Christian school has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students.

Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples.

Posted by Nancy
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 31, 2012 at 4:55 pm

I don't support homosexual marriage or plural marraige. Those who say that I am bigotted, for opposing gay marriage, are every bit as bigotted, if they do not also support plural marriage. How does plural marriage affect their own marriage? Consenting adults can make their own choices, right? At least in plural marraige, the kids can have a father and mother.

If the Supreme Court alllows homosexual marraige, it will need to use the same logic to allow plural marraige.

Posted by Palmer
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 31, 2012 at 5:25 pm

Been to the Rick Santorum 'man on dog' slippery slope school, haven't you?

Geez............

Okay, let's look at your 'Parade of the Imaginary Horribles'

"The parade of the imaginary horribles is the list of off-the-wall worst-case scenarios that opponents claim will occur after the legalization or acceptance of a prohibited activity. (I.e., Santorum's "man-on-dog sex" statement listed above.) These scenarios say more about the psyches of the people who devise them than about the proponents for change."

"This term is accredited to former U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. "

And I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks, Nancy, for having me look that up.

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 31, 2012 at 5:39 pm

Plural marriage isn't the subject. Why would those who have educated themselves about gay marriage know anything about polygamy when there isn't a movement for it?

The real reason has nothing to do w/proponents of gay marriage; the real reason is that the Supreme Court decided a long time ago that they are against polygamy. For those trying to make polygamy a current issue in marriage equality, please, go ahead & work on that. I wish you luck w/your success. If you're stupid enough to think that incestuous marriage is a good idea, well, then you can lead the charge on that one, medical evidence be damned.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that they need to support gay marriage. It's a tough subject for many & change can be slow. I do, however, strongly feel that the arguments against it on this thread aren't particularly compelling because I'm not seeing arguments based on the constitutionality of being against gay marriage.

Posted by Nancy
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 31, 2012 at 5:48 pm

>the Supreme Court decided a long time ago that they are against polygamy.

The SC has never allowed homosexual marriage. If the SC does approve of gay marriage, it will also need to approve of plural marraige, just using its own logic, consenting adults.

That's why it is an important question. I ask again: Who, among the pro-gay marraige cabal approves of plural marriage? Almost as important: If you oppose plural marriage, what is the basis of your bigottry?

Posted by Palmer
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 31, 2012 at 5:59 pm

nancy "The SC has never allowed homosexual marriage. If the SC does approve of gay marriage, it will also need to approve of plural marraige, just using its own logic, consenting adults. That's why it is an important question."

And then they have to approve Man/Dog marriage.

And then they have to approve Man/Fish marriage.

Once we're there, they have to approve Fish/Dog marriage.

Once we're there, if we discover Martians, they have to approve Man/Martian marriage.

Once we're there, they have to approve Dog/Martian marriage.

Once we're there, they have to approve THREE WAY PLURAL Man/Martian/Fish marriage.

AND I, FOR ONE, WILL NOT STAND FOR IT!!!!!!!

(I sure hope y'all heard that in my best John Belushi voice, you know, the one for "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?")

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 31, 2012 at 6:04 pm

At the root of it, what I want to know: Is being unable to legally marry causing pain & hardship for the group that desires marriage equality? In the case of gay marriage, the answer is yes. BTW, this group has to be of age, consenting & of sound mind.

Is this the case w/polygamy? Are the polygamy activists who can tell me where to look for the evidence that they are enduring pain & suffering, hardship, bias?

I don't think that is the Supreme Court decides in favor of gay marriage then automatically they have to approve of polygamy. It's not how they work, & you know that.

Posted by Palmer
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 31, 2012 at 6:15 pm

"I am requesting that you stop dodging my question."

Request all you want, it's a stupid question; with you using it in a slippery slope, straw man fallacy because you have nothing else.

It's a STUPID question, for all the reasons outlined above by Hmmm, who is taking you far more seriously than anyone should (so bless him/her.)

When one (you) is informed that a question is stupid, for the various reasons involved in logical debate, then the other (us) have to reach one of two conclusions:
1. you have no other choice, as your quiver is empty - hey, it happens sometimes when one is defending the indefensible
2. you are incapable of understanding what is presented (there are other ways of saying this)

The Roberts SCOTUS is aware of the litigation cases where homosexual marriage has restricted the freedom of religion in those states.

SCOTUS will give the Constitutional right of freedom of religion precedent.

In America Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus etc tolerate homosexual behavior but do not advocate it nor approve of it.

Homosexual marriage is a direct threat to their practice of religious freedom-based upon the litigation in Boston and elsewhere which forced devout America Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus to drastically restrict their freedom of religion.

Guess what-

In the SCOTUS freedom of religious practice will trump the case of the homosexual activists-

-they should take the domestic partnership option while it is still on the table.

Because if the homosexual activists continue to try to force homosexual marriage then there will be a massive backlash

Posted by Nancy
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 31, 2012 at 6:35 pm

>At the root of it, what I want to know: Is being unable to legally marry causing pain & hardship for the group that desires marriage equality? In the case of gay marriage, the answer is yes. BTW, this group has to be of age, consenting & of sound mind.

Is this the case w/polygamy? Are the polygamy activists who can tell me where to look for the evidence that they are enduring pain & suffering, hardship, bias?

@ Hmmm: Those who support plural marraige have been disciminated against for many decades. Remember Utah? Current polygamists are thrown into prison, and their children are sometimes taken from them. I support that discimination, because I am against polygamy, as well as homosexual marriage. Do you support plural marraige? If not, what is the basis of your own discimination?

Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 31, 2012 at 6:40 pm

Plural marriage is not moot in this discussion. Incestual marriage is not moot in this discussion.

There is already one case in the courts in Germany about a brother/sister who want to marry and have taken their case to the German courts. Children are already born to this couple so the medical argument against incest is not relevant.

If you approve of gay marriage (gay used to mean happy and colorful and can no longer be used in that sense) then it is perfectly logical to also approve of plural marriage and incestual marriage.

Keep up the logic, and some will also see nothing wrong with arranged marriages or those between minors.

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 31, 2012 at 7:01 pm

Nancy, I really am not up on issues re those who wish to practice polygamy. I'm not aware of pro-polygamy folks suffering in Calif. right now - but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

I am not sure what the legal arguments against polygamy are, unless it has to do w/womens' rights, as most polygamy advocates seem to want more wives than husbands. What I do know is that the legality of gay marriage doesn't automatically mean that any other type of marriage is a given right. That's what's disingenuous w/this argument about types of marriage other than same sex & opposite sex. We don't know what our future culture will deem acceptable & I leave it to them to bring up those issues. What is relevant currently is the subject of gay marriage & that's what Mr. Pogue has wrestled with & followed what his current conscience dictates.

What happens to gay people in your church? Are they allowed to be members?

Posted by Palmer
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 31, 2012 at 7:53 pm

Bull.

Note 'she' has yet to answer 'Hmmm's' questions. "Is this the case w/polygamy? Are the(re) polygamy activists who can tell me where to look for the evidence that they are enduring pain & suffering, hardship, bias? "

Slippery slope, from the absurd hypothetical to the 'Parade of the Imaginary Horribles'.

Not relevant, despite what two posters are telling you, to deviate from the issue: Marriage Equality is a Civil Right.

There is clear and compelling evidence that where homosexual marriage is permitted it directly violates freedom of religious practice.

The Roberts SCOTUS will apply the Constitution to this matter

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Therefore homosexual marriage is dead-

-stick with domestic partnerships while you still have the chance.

The peoples patience on this matter is running out fast

See what happened in N Carolina- they rejected both homosexual marriage and domestic partnership.

In CA tolerance is fine

-advocacy and promotion of homosexual behavior in our public schools is wrong

Posted by svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Jun 2, 2012 at 4:37 pmsvatoid is a registered user.

"There is clear and compelling evidence that where homosexual marriage is permitted it directly violates freedom of religious practice."
Okay, Sharon, provide the "clear and compelling" evidence or links to it. We are waiting.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Maybe you could explain how allowing gay marriages prohibits the free exercise of a person's religion. Will heterosexual couple be forbidden from going to church? engaging in prayer? Practicing their religion?
Do you feel that the practice of a religion allows people to force their beliefs on others--i.e. if you believe abortion is wrong should abortion be banned of everyone?
Please respond, for a change, Sharon.

Posted by Aram James
a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 5, 2012 at 2:30 am

June, 4, 2012

Hi Steve (Steve Pogue for Judge):

(1) You have written a brilliant letter re the issues surrounding what I characterize as the Republican Party v White controversy. I will try to answer your points as directly as I can--but mostly I hope everyone on this e-list will read your letter and share it with others in the legal community and equally important with those in our community who so much want to hear from our judges and judicial candidates in this time when our courts and all the institutional players in the system --public defenders, district attorneys, the courts, law enforcement agencies, etc., are all bursting at the seams.

(2) As to the candidates for judicial office I am not looking for any particularly set of answers to the questions that interest me--I want to see the reasoning the candidate uses in reaching their conclusion--isn't that the type of legal reasoning we were taught to employ in law school. My particular set of questions were in large part rhetorical in natureexamples of the type of hard questions that would be fair game for voters to ask under the dictate of Republican Party v White.

(3) I am not writing this as a request that people vote for you or not--I really am interested in making certain that all future judicial elections in this county benefit from this important discussion re the significance of Republican Party v White and how it shifts the landscape re what candidate are free to say re the critical issues of the day. I am guessing Cindy Sevely will win over whelming tomorrow --but sadly in my mind with zero real discussion of the critical issues. I personally hope you will run again--not because I will or will not necessarily vote for you but because we need lawyers like you willing to discuss our constitution --and not hide behind a non-existing Canon--to deny the public a right to hear your views.

(4) I personally don't care about party labels--party labels don't speak for me --I speak for myself and want a vibrant discussion on the important substantive issues that are facing us as a county, state and nation. The fact that you may be a registered Republican and me a registered Green party member ( formerly Peace & Freedom) is of no moment re a discussion on the merits of any given issue i.e., the death penalty, gay marriage, the three-strikes laws, the Nuremberg principals as applied to Obama's current use of unarmed drones to kill and murder unarmed civilians, the use of indefinite detention by our government to detain so-called terrorists suspects without the right to a trial or even the pretext of due process, the use of torture to secure confessions and on and on. In fact the last time I looked the Constitution wasn't registered with any party!!!!

(5) Now you say your willingness to discuss the holding in Republican Party v White does not mean you are breaking ranks with the other candidates--I respectfully disagree. You say in your letter (directly below) "Do I believe I have a right to express my every political view except to state specifically how I would rule on an issue? Sure. The court said so, and that settles it." Okay--well you got it right--that is exactly what the holding in White says. But guess the other four candidates have been playing fast and loose with the truth in that regard and let me give you my reasoning in that regard.

(6) Your opponent, Cindy Sevely--said to me in an e-mail exchange--read it for yourself --it is at the bottom of the e-mail tread--that; "-Hi Aram Unfortunately I won't be able to answer the questions you want to learn. I am aware of Cannon 7 and violations of this can be reported to the State Bar. So, did you still want to meet with me?"
Cindy

(7) Now to be fair and so I am --not accused of taken Cindy Sevely's words out of context-- read the entire exchange (see below and the bottom of this e-mail tread). My conclusion is as follows: (1) Cindy Sevely just simply had not read Republican Party v White and thus continued to claim out of ignorance that Canon 5 which she referred to as Canon 7--precluded her from giving her personal views on the issues. (2) She was well aware of Republican Party v White--but out of political expediency decided to claim that Canon 5 prevented her from giving her opinions on the issues--to avoid having to answer any question she thought might offend the voters thus costing here votes. In my words seller her soul to win an election at the expense of the voter's right to be fully informed on her views and at the expense of her own integrity and at the expense of our constitution. I will leave for other to decide where the truth falls.

(8) As to the candidates Paul Colin, Chris Cobey and Alexis Cerul--I realize you were not at their debate --which took place before the one you had with Cindy Sevely. Okay-here is my recollection--but the forum/debate was taped so you can review it for yourself. I submitted several written question at the LWV's forum/debate. And the first question as by the moderator was one of mine: It went something like this: There are two criminal justice initiatives on the November ballot one that would end the death penalty in California and the other that would amend and soften the three-strikes law. Please give your opinion on each and how you intend to vote???? The first to answer was Alexis Cerulhis response ( again go to the tape to see the verbatim answer): I am unable to answer that question because of an ethical or judicial Canon prohibition against answer a question on an issue I that might come before me as a judge. Paul Colin and Chris Cobeyessentially parroted the same response.

(9) Now you Steve have it right: If you don't want to answer a question then tell the voters the truth I have a first amendment right to do sotoo answer your hard-ball question but I am exercising my first amendment right not to answer the question since I don't want to lose votes, don't want to offend anyone etc., the don't lie to the voters that you can't.

(10) In the end it is very difficult for me to imagine voting for a candidate who refuses to answer a given question since of course I and believe most voters are this wayhave no litmus test re the answers I am looking for but rather want to get to know the candidate how they think, how they respond are they compassionatedo they evidence a degree of legal scholarship are they passionate about our constitution, etc.

(11) All of the candidates this year after seeing their debate performance received an inflated grade of D- form me. You are the only candidate who has post-debate been willing to even debate the issues with mefor that and your honesty and clear passion for the law and our constitution I am changing your grade to an A, this despite my huge disagreement with you on the gay marriage issue and I am guessing on many other issues as well.

Be well and continue to stand for what you think is right and continue to debate the issues in the open and always keep an open mind that some datasome argument might persuade you that your initial take on the issue is wrong. I promise to do the same.

With great respect,

Aram James

Aram--

I do not think I have broken ranks with anyone. I do not recall anyone saying they disagreed with Republican Party v. White. And agree or not, it is the law, like Miranda and Citizens United.

One thing to remember is that there are things we have a right to do and things that are unwise to do, and they are often found on the same list. Further, having a right to do something and having an obligation to do so are far from being the same thing.

Do I believe I have a right to express my every political view except to state specifically how I would rule on an issue? Sure. The court said so, and that settles it. What they did not say was that anyone has any obligation to do so, nor did they say that it was necessarily a good idea to do so. I have a right to walk down the most dangerous street in America, but I have no obligation to do so, nor would it necessarily be prudent.

I am certain that I hold some political views that would be shared by 99% of Americans. I imagine that I hold others that might be shared by only 10%. (I am just using hypotheticals, I have not thought up specific examples.) I would suppose that the same could be said of your political views.

My reasons for not discussing my political views in depth are not based in any belief or pretense that I am forbidden by any law or canon from doing so. I do not even believe that California law is in conflict with RP v. White. My reasons for not discussing my political views in depth are precisely as I have expressed them. The first being, hardly anyone has asked. The second is that I believe it would be unwise to express political views that might appear to telegraph that I am reliably one way or another on any issue.

In the League of Women Voters forum in Campbell, we were all asked what we thought of Justice Ginsburg's comment that other countries should not use our constitution as a model. Everyone declined but me, and I said I was appalled and thought it was an awful thing for a Supreme Court justice to say.

Much can be learned about one's political views simply from party registration, and that is public record. I am a registered Republican. That is no secret. That tells some people all they need to know. It would tell nearly anyone something, as would registration as a Democrat, a Green, or a Libertarian. It certainly does not tell everything, but gives a good hint. Everyone who has asked me that, I have told. Hardly anyone has asked, and I have not stressed it. It is a non-partisan office. I am not running as a Republican and for me to tout it would add a partisan aspect to a race that should be apolitical.

So, I hope that clarifies my views on RP v. White, and why I have declined to answer some of your questions. And as to most of them, you are the only one who has even asked me.

Steve

6/4/2012
Hi Wayne,
Well yes the campaign season is short but this applies to other types of elections as well--say city council races, BOS races, etc., but this is no reason not to allow the people to elect our judges My key point is that the candidates have been hiding by a judicial Canon # 5, whose provisions preventing judicial candidates from expressing their views on the hot button legal, political and social issues of the day was declared unconstitutional in Republican Party v White Web Link in 2002.
The case is a very interesting read and traces the history of judicial elections back for more than a century. The key language in Scalia's decision is that so long as a state prefers to have elections for judges ( and he doesn't offer an opinion--like the ABA does--that judges should all be selected by insiders)-- that the state cannot then allow voters to suffer in a state of government imposed voter ignorance.
Another words the case holds that judicial candidates have the same rights (first amend rights) to voice their personal opinions-- on the hard issues of the day-- as any other candidate for any other political office, and that we the voters have an equally compelling first amendment right to be fully informed on the issues before we enter the polling booth. Of course if a state decides to only allow for appointed judges then we-- the voters-- are stuck with the legal elite deciding what is best for us. I don't go for that and I am guessing you don't either!!!
And yesmarriage is a very complex issue-but gay marriage is no more or less complicated than interracial marriage was thought to be 40-60 years ago -which was outlawed in this state until about 1948-- when such laws were struck down in Perez v Sharp, Web Link. California was the first state to strike down such laws --almost 20 years before the U.S. Supreme Court did so in Loving v. Virginia Web Link.
The recent decisions coming out of the courts on gay marriage ---striking down laws banning gay marriage-- are doing so on the same constitutional grounds as the courts did in striking down anti-miscegenation's laws of an earlier generation.
So regardless of the complex religious and cultural issues/arguments that can be made for or against gay marriage---on purely legal grounds there is little or no difference from the issues decided in the Loving and Perez cases.
I think gay marriage-- on legal grounds only-- is soon to be a settled issue--the U.S. Supreme Court will-in my view--declare any ban on gay marriage to be unconstitutional.
On a popular basis, the culture wars--like those involving issues relate to abortion, race issues, etc. will continue to be fought in the hearts and minds of the men and women for many years to come.
Aram

Posted by Joyce Rogers
a resident of Los Altos
on Jun 5, 2012 at 3:56 am

Thank you, editors. You did the right thing. As one who is directly impacted by Prop 8, and after four years of this sickening display of bigotry and betrayal by my beloved, native Golden State -- which I once loved beyond words, but which since 2008 has felt like a hostile, foreign pit of disease -- I no longer have the energy to explain (again) to the naysayers why a Prop 8 donation of one dollar or one million completely undermines the credibility of anyone who wants to be a judge.

But I don't have to explain it to you, PA editors -- you get it, unlike 52% of all the people I meet on the street every day, who, I know, see me as something less than human.

So, I'll just leave you with 1) my deep gratitude for making the right decision, 2) the knowledge that one more living, breathing human being feels just a little less hated today, and 3) a reminder than that my comment represents countless longtime readers who will stay in your corner, as you have in ours -- but who have even less energy to battle the bigotry than I do.

Posted by svatoid
a resident of Meadow Park
on Jun 5, 2012 at 12:35 pm

CNN got this story wrong:Web Link
"The divisive issue of same-sex marriage in California may become another landmark case taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court after federal appeals court judges refused Tuesday to revisit an earlier ruling."

Sharon has previously stated:
"The Roberts SCOTUS will take the Federal case first next year and then the CA case"
No if , ands or buts in her statement.
And we know that everything Sharon posts in factual

we are still waiting Sharon for your evidence to support your claim that There is clear and compelling evidence that where homosexual marriage is permitted it directly violates freedom of religious practice.
After all, it goes to your reliability for you to provide proof for that claim, Sharon.

It would seem that thus far, Mr. Pogue has not fared well in the election - he's at 26A%. Where is all of the support that Sharon, What About the Children & their friends, thought that there would be for this election? Nancy isn't included since she's in a different county. If the numbers hold, he'll be soundly defeated. Interesting.

Nayeli, Sharon, What about the children? No comment about this election result???

Sharon was quick to post comments re the Wisconsin recall election (most of it her usual way out predictions) Plus we are still waiting for proof for her statement that here is clear and compelling evidence that where homosexual marriage is permitted it directly violates freedom of religious practice.

Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 6, 2012 at 1:40 pm

I am saying that Pogue was not well known by commenters in this forum as far as we can tell until the change of heart by the Weekly. I had seen some signs in yards beforehand, but hadn't really taken much notice until that time.